Mattias Bergsten wrote:
Sure. But if you originally downloaded the file from someone with
hashing support in the client, you already have hashes for the file in
your queue.xml, and if you don't, you really have no way of knowing if
it's actually the same file or not, except if a .md5 file (.sfv is
CRC32, which IMHO isn't good enough since it's a checksum, not a hash)
is supplied with the file. Most people are never going to keep .md5
files in their share.
TTH, on the other hand, is done mostly transparent to the user. Which is
good, since users are all idiots. :P
Yea, never said it would not be could done like that. But say if a user
is not an idiot (does that statement relates to the other one; you being
sysadmin? ;P) this may be a good feature, no? Mean, why not tth in
results, like you said, and different choices in searching?
No, I have no other/better to suggest. So use TTH then, fine with me.
Hm, was working on a (another) scenario where you'd require the choice
of hashes, but I realized (in the middle of the writing) that the
teqnique already used is enough for the purpose. Dunno what I thinked...
shouldn't write emails 04:20 AM ;) *forget my idea*
Said .sfv because that's what I've seen being used on DC, figured that
you are used to it - no idea what it really is, or why it's used.
Personally, I use MD5 because.. i dunno.. i've always used it and is the
most widley used :)
(btw, if case of md5, the files are simply called
"MD5", not *.md5)
Just got Todd's mail before sending this one;
Yes, I know - if you read my other mails (after that one you replied to)
you realize that I did not understood you where talking about search
replies. Thought you were talking about the search query. :/
/Carl-Adam, please ignore my letters after 2 AM...
ps. I'm going to bed now, before I cause any more mess in this list ;)