Kick if in PG list

[Aztek 2]

Got the idea of having an option to run a raw on users that are found on the peerguardian blocklist...

Comment away ...

[Zlobomir 3]

Will be great and I do not see weak points, maybe we need also an IP/nick list(s) for RAW actions in DC (so RAWs get triggered only on chosen users), with options Apply to PG, apply to list, apply to both. Need to find the optimum anyway.

[Guest Toast]

voted yes

[Satan 1]

I like the idea too.

[Pundan 0]

The only problem I can see with this is Apex loosing it's ground on the more hardcore users. I actually had to give up a few hubs when upgrading (I say upgrading since I think this client is far better than any previous ones that I've tried) to Apex because of the Netlimiter function. A lot of hubs out there doesn't allow one to set upload limit and many block Apex because of that.

So by developing such a feature I think there will be more hubs that will block Apex because there's a chance that one will find a way to add whatever IPs to the PG list. I understand that it's for a good cause, but there are few register-only hubs that has problems with users on the PG-list There's infiltrators for that kind of stuff who's not on the blacklist, yet.

[Satan 1]

The PG list is made up purely of IP's from people who represent companies such as RIAA etc. so this will not effect Apex in any way whatsoever.

If you connected to the twisted gate hub (one my faves) it uses PG Checker for hubs but i've never been kicked for Apex and prolly never will.

[MiRaGe 0]

I think Pundan was trying to say that even if the default PG list contains the enemy's IP addresses, but it can easily be edited by the user (especially when it's not a simple user but someone who knows exactly what he wants) .... and for example can deny connections from some countries, some regions, blablabla .... and that's why he's a bit afraid of the reaction of hub owners to the whole PG function.

I'll vote yes in a minute as of course i find it a good way to protect my users from these ppl, and the whole PG plugin is also one of the greatest feature in this

but Pundan: i don't think we'll have to be afraid of the client being banned because of this function ... PG is not in the same cathegory as NL ... but if you definetally need to limit your upload&download speed, for the other computers to have at least some in your lan, i can help you to find another solution :lol:

[Pundan 0]

but Pundan: i don't think we'll have to be afraid of the client being banned because of this function ... PG is not in the same cathegory as NL ... but if you definetally need to limit your upload&download speed, for the other computers to have at least some in your lan, i can help you to find another solution

I don't need to limit my upload, I never use the function. I can see why some people do, but I also understand why some hubs doesn't allow Apex because of that function. Most hubs I visit doesn't allow one to limit your upload (including the one where I'm OP). That is not what Direct Connect is about for me.

[bigcanuck 0]

I don't need to limit my upload, I never use the function. I can see why some people do, but I also understand why some hubs doesn't allow Apex because of that function. Most hubs I visit doesn't allow one to limit your upload (including the one where I'm OP). That is not what Direct Connect is about for me.

True I'll agree with that but we have to protect our users now. Where I run my hub, it's increasingly hard even just to find OP's to help run it because everyone is afraid of legislation that is currently being made. As it is mine is a fairly private hub running inside of a campus lan on the residance network. But the PG list allows me to give not only myself and others in the lan as much protection as I can give them. Which I think will slowly become important for many hubs to do not that far into the future. So I'm voting yes to this feature for although I may not totally agree with it in some ways I think it's a more important step to protect the community.

[MiRaGe 0]

I don't need to limit my upload, I never use the function. I can see why some people do, but I also understand why some hubs doesn't allow Apex because of that function. Most hubs I visit doesn't allow one to limit your upload (including the one where I'm OP). That is not what Direct Connect is about for me.

the built in limiter is never used here as well, because ... if i'm the only one using the internet from behind my router, than no need to limit anything, but there are 4 more computers connected to the router ... for example that's why i 'limit' or rather say 'shape' the connection speeds with cFos Speed ... quite a useful software, worth a check ... this little soft now ensures that the computers behind your router share the connection and it won't happen if you take away all bandwidth up+down with dc++ that the others won't be able to even log into msn ( happened here manymany times before ) ... and when the others don't use sofwares, which have priorities over dc++ ( for example msn, or hubsoft(s) or softwares you need for your work ... ) dc++ gets back the full speed available.

this kind of 'limitation' ( i wouldn't use limitation, as only limits for that time while the prior soft has to download/upload, than gives back all ) is not banned in hungary (and no place i visited recently on dc++)

http://www.cfos.de/index2_e.htm ( i don't want to advertise, so if any of you mods feel like deleting this link, please go ahead )

[Greg 0]

cFosSpeed is shaping, it's not limiting, just prioritising because Windows can't do it already. I've linked to it quite a few times before, so the link can stay. Most routers also have some form of traffic shaping to, allowing you to prioritise certain ports or ethernet ports on the actual router (different machines on your network). People should really make use of traffic shaping.