Ok Barf...let's examine this a bit without any acrimony.

I have a one big question about the so-called "spy packets" which Mr. Falco has not seen fit to properly explain. Perhaps you will be able to respond in an adult manner and satisfy my concerns.

Why are these data packets necessary at all? I understand that they are used to trigger the update notice that Bearshare displays when a new version is available. But the question is, why has Mr. Falco felt it necessary to munge the Gnutella Protocol to accomplish this? Why can't users simply check for themselves at the Bearshare site to see if a new version is available. This is the way it is done most everywhere else. Or at the very least make this an option that the user can choose and approve or disapprove, like Symantec does when it *ASKS* it's users if they would *LIKE* to install Liveupdate with their AntiVirus products. Or the way that Microsoft does when it *ASKS* it's users if they would like to use the automated Windows Update features. Instead, Mr. Falco makes modifications to the Gnutella Protocol, uses encrypted data packets, and does not ask his users if they even *WANT* to be notified about new versions. Why is its necessary to force this on the users. This question has NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED. Do you, or anyone else for that matter, have an answer to it?

Certainly you can understand the reason many are concerned about this. There is a tremendous potential for abuse in the use of these encrypted packets. We are told that they are harmless, but how can we be SURE that they are harmless? We are expected to take Mr. Falco's word for this. But unfortuantely Mr. Falco has not done much here recently to bolster his credibility.

So what's a mother to do? Perhaps you may be able to shed some light on this?