gooer -- would something similiar to the way search results are filtered be okay for the library?

As someone who is broadband-challenged, lemme say that this request SUCKS!

To faster I can download a file (especially a large file), the better.

How about instead of showing the downloaded percentage of a file, why not show the actual # of KB downloaded ( i.e: 2496 of 10892KB download)?

but all you need to do now is go to your LW Lib window & incomplete folder & press refresh every now & again. But then listing the size as suggested & % would be good (maybe an option to click at the top of the Progress column.)

Back to my 1st point about checking the Library. I've noticed that on large dwnlds (particularly those over 100 MB) that at one time it shows perhaps 101 or 102k KB & then the next time I refresh it, it shows 100.6 MB or something. And whilst the 1st one showed it in kb the 2nd in MB. (This has happened numerous times) Is there some issue there? (I particularly notice it on my connection.)

Hey,
Just a quick feature request.
I would love iTunes integration in LimeWire for XP like on LimeWire for OSX.

A feature that limewire should have is the option to download the newer version of LimeWire using LimeWire that would make it easier then going to the website.

I would like basic security, this comes in two parts.

First of all, please allow SSL to be configured, even if it's anonymous DH key exchange, that's better than nothing. One of the dorms I lived in had hub style networks, so everyone in the building could see everything you did on the internet, including everything you downloaded with Limewire. :-( It's not a serious issue, but it should be trivial to add a capability to use SSL if both clients support it, considering that the code is already in most JVMs.

Secondly, it would be nice for there to be basic privacy and anonymity. Allow the ultra-peers to have a "host on your behalf" option, where an ultra-peer will pretend to have your files, and will act as an intermediary in all transfers. This could help with caching (perhaps accumulating files on ultra-peers), and allow the edge nodes to remain private. It could also allow an ultra-peer plausible denyability for everything they host.

The best way to do this is to have an "intermediary probability" that can be set between 0.0 and 1.0 by the user. If the setting is at zero, then you never host on behalf of anyone, if it's 1.0, then you host on behalf of anyone. If it's somewhere in between, then you can't really prove that the ultra-peer was responsible for a file because you don't know that he wasn't hosting someone else just because he refused to host you.

That would be a very simple addition that would make the network FAR more resiliant.

If you want to mask Gnutella traffic completely you would have to break the protocol.
So there probably won't be any SSL in the near future.

I was under the assumption this would limit the number of uploads a person can use at any given time. Now I am under the assumption it is a total value for some given amount of time. Either way it is confusing.

So does it mean (a): If I allow 6 uploads, and set the uploads per person to 2, then one user could upload all the files I have to offer, but only two files at any given time.
-or-
Does it mean (b): A user can upload 2 files from me, thats it. Forever (or for the day? whatever)

I would like to have option (a), but I need some clarification on what it means.

it's (a)