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 ;)