I tried searching for previous threads asking for this (surely they must exist), but the search is dysfunctional now and only returns an error message.

Anyway, my feature request is to add a checkbox in LimeWire's options, next to the words: Allow other users to browse my shared files.

That is, make sharing the list of your shared files optional.

Lots of people disagree with me about this, but more people agree, and it should really be up to each user.

This would neither encourage nor discourage leeching. If you think it would, you haven't thought about it enough.

For many years I used WinMx and the greatest feature was a add on app called MxMonitor. You say that the option to turn off browse host would not encourage leaching, I say you are wrong.

When I used MxMonitor it had the ability to ban leaches (IE) if they had browse host disabled and MxMonitor was enabled it would attempt to browse them if results came back as 0 share it blocked there request and banned them.

If I cleared my ban list at the beginning of a session within 24 to 48hrs. I would have a 200 banded. About 10% of these baned users would send me a message asking me why I would not allow them to DL from me. I would reply because they were not sharing and were leaching and I do not share with leaches. I told them I would un block them if they started sharing and explained to them that I used MxMonitor and it would ban them if they Qed me and they were not sharing.

Guess what 90% of these people admittedly were not sharing an 10% said they were sharing. Of the 90% that were not sharing about 60% would enable sharing and browse host thus they could download from me if they got in line and waited their turn.

Now admittedly LimeWire browse host does not work very well. And as I have said before it needs to be fixed once this happens then we need a add on app like MxMonitor or perhaps they could incorporate it into LimeWire.

Once that happens Then I could really give a crap if the put a option to disable browse host but if you enable it I will bet it will eliminate about 70% of your download sources. I know you would not be DL from me.

In my opinion the only reason for disabling browse host is so you can leach. And as I explained before I do have personal experience with it.

If you are sharing things you are afraid you are going to get in trouble for then quit sharing them. Disabling browse host will not stop someone from getting you IP address if you are sharing illegal material they don't have to browse you to get you IP Address.

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa

1) People like Grandpa who feel the need to wetnurse the network take up way too much bandwidth constantly downloading my HUGE file listing. You want to automate this and build it into the client? That sounds like a good idea... NOT! (YES, I share a lot, and want to disable browse. Wanna bet there's others who feel the same way?)

2) Rude people who download EVERY file I'm sharing at the same time. I realize that it is possible to get a file listing without browse host, but most of these dimwits don't.

3) The RIAA routinely uses browse host to find out what people are sharing. They have harassed people even when they are doing nothing wrong, just for running a filesharing client (99% of the time, there is infringement, but it still sucks to be the 1%).

If people don't want others to see what they're sharing, right now they have ONE option: Don't share anything. Allowing them to disable browse is friendlier to the network than having them share nothing.

And for what it's worth, the only thing that sucked about WinMX was the punks who ran LeechHammer, etc. Half of the people running it USED it to leech and keep people from getting anything from them, and the rest came off with a holier-than-thou attitude, banning people and sending them hostile messages about being a "LEECH!" just because WinMX's browse host didn't work half the time. There's a reason antileech was never built into WinMX, and that is because it's fileSHARING, not fileTRADING. If you want to trade, might I recommend DirectConnect? Most of the servers won't even let you on unless you have gigabytes of content. That's not what I want gnutella to become.

P.S. I know it sounds like I'm giving Grandpa both barrels when he made a polite response, but he's already said these things repeatedly in another thread, and I've pointed out why he's wrong. One more time:

1. EVERY other filesharing client that allows browsing allows you to disable it.

2. EVERY other gnutella client that supports browsing allows you to disable it.

3. Limewire did not even have browsing before 2.5.

Please tell us, Grandpa, how is me not allowing you to see everything I share going to cause the gnutella network to crash down around our ears, especially since browse doesn't work right as it is?

I just did in the post above if you go back and read some of the post I have made over time you will see that I am very meticulous about facts and figures All that disabling browse host does is encourage leaching and nothing is worse than a leach sucking up bandwidth from others who do share their files.Frum your statement about WinMx you must have been in the 10% who said they were sharing. And actually I found the browse host feature to work very well in WinMx 95% of the time it would return results.

And by the way I do not use up your bandwith the only time I download anything any more is when I am testing. I leave LimeWire on 24hrs a day 5 days a week UL 40KB/s and depending on which drives I decide to share between 80GB and 300GB. So I would be careful about saying people like Grandpa. The odds are I have given more than you have even seen.

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa

In post A, Grandpa says (regarding MXmonitor, a WinMX "antileech" utility:

"... would attempt to browse them if results came back as 0 share it blocked there request and banned them. "

"... within 24 to 48hrs. I would have a 200 banded"

In post B, Granpa says:

"actually I found the browse host feature to work very well in WinMx 95% of the time it would return results."

Yeah, sure. Even if all he shared was mp3's (at about 3 megs apiece, a generous estimate), he'd have to upload around 12 gigs a day for those numbers to work out.

WHY IS HE THE ONLY PERSON WHO RESPONDS TO MY POSTS???

Limewire devs, please disregard his opinions regarding browse host, because he is obviously an anal retentive control freak who browses everyone who tries to upload from him and cancels the upload everytime browse fails.

There was a poll, and the majority of those who voted agree that this is a feature they would like to have.

We are not leeches. We just want control over who sees our shares and how.

And I didn't ask for you to say it would harm the network again, Grandpa, I asked you why you think it is harmful (HINT: It is not.)

Well you better quit before you show how much you don't know about P2P apps you are well on your way already.

P2P 101

With MxMonitor whenever a person Qed a file you have in your share it scanned that person with MxMonitor I allowed 100 people in my Q. My cue would fill within 10 min. of the time I turned it on and stayed full until I shut down. So if you figure 100 people every 10 min. 1hr = 60min. = 600 per hr. X 24 = 14,400 per day.

Now with limeWire if you watch the monitor tab different people are connecting all of the time. It is quite obvious that you do not even have the slightest idea of how P2P works. Maybe you should do a little studying before you open your mouth and insert your foot again.

And by the way I allow 10 in my Q and 5 uploads with LimeWire and it is full within 3 minutes. All of my files are scanned and checked and all are tested and work no matter what format they are. There are no viruses spyware or anything else on my files and that my friend represents years of work. Something I very seriously doubt you have done. You see I do care about the network. And it means allot more to me than just a place to steal a song or software or a movie.

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa

Regarding your math:

Let's say you only ban 100 people a day (I'll be kind to you.)

If, as you said, that represents only 5% of your total uploads (you did say that WinMX returns results 95% of the time), then you would have to have 2000 successful queue entries per day.

Multiply that by an average filesize of 3 MB, and you get around 6 gigs in queue per day.

Now, it is possible that you are sharing thousands of tiny image files, but your previous post about "I've spent years scanning my shares, in all formats, etc." suggests that is not the case.

Now, not only is it unlikely that you're uploading 6 gigs per day (keep in mind that's a conservative estimate- I'm being kind here), but:

WINMX only allowed 5,000 shares per person, and that was on a primary connection, which used a big chunk of your upload bandwidth to route network traffic. Secondary connections were limited to 3,000.

Somehow, I doubt you were getting 14,400 upload requests per day.

So which is it? Did WinMX's browse host feature work almost all the time, or did you end up banning thousands of people per day?

In any event, you are not the average user, and this should be recognized when considering your requests.

(ALSO, if you set your max queue size to X, that doesn't mean you get X new people in your queue every hour, because the previous hour's queue does not clear each hour. I did not deal with that because it requires more explaination than your weak argument really deserves. Please try to educate yourself before educating others.)

This concludes P2P 101.

I notice you edited your post. I wonder which facts you're playing fast and loose with?

You have no Idea of what you are talking about once again open mouth and insert foot. But then again maybe you are just stupid.

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa

i really hope you're trying to say that MXmonitor scanning is different than WinMX browsing, because that will further illustrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

the only interaction that MXmonitor has with the WinMX network is by controlling WinMX. if WinMX's browse works, then MXmonitor's scan does. the opposite is also true.

please continue trying to make me look bad. it makes you look worse than i ever could.

Now, back on topic, how do you guys out there with a clue feel about making browse host optional?