Block certain private messages

Use this forum to flesh out your feature request before you enter it in <a href="http://dcpp.net/bugzilla/">Bugzilla</a>.

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Block certain private messages

Post by maksrules » 2005-11-24 09:20

Probably, everyone has got some very annoying private messages, which are more precise to call spam... Haven't you got tired of recieving this junk? I wish I could block certain users from sending me messages... Then they would be unable to do this that easily :)

And one more thing, did anyone understand how to make a request in bugzilla? Am i blind, or it's too complicated, or something... I just can't make it! It always offers me to make a bug report, but i want to request a feature of blocking users!!! It drives me mad... :x

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2005-11-24 10:00

Have you realised that these spam messages are almost always being sent from different, random nick, users? Blocking usernames will do you no good. What you should do is stop being in hubs that don't take actions against the spammers. A good hubowner should be able to stop the spam more or less easily.

A feature request is made by submitting a bug report with the Severity enhancement.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Re: Block certain private messages

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-11-24 11:01

maksrules wrote:i want to request a feature of blocking users!!! It drives me mad... :x

The first rule of entering a feature request or bug is to check to see if there is already one. I think this existing one fits your intention:

Bug 624 User-defined Spam Blocker


This is a problem that hubs can also solve, and they're probably in a better position to do so than the client.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-11-25 15:23

You see, if I would get spam only from random nicknames, I would never request this thing, and since I didn't find it anywere in DC++, I decided to request it,' cause in that case DC++ probably doesn't have this feature... Besides, i sometimes get the same spam from the same user, but in different hubs... That really annoys. That's why i think that a possibility of creating your own filters would be really appreciated by many users of DC++.

And where is spam blocker? However, GargoyleMT, my request is very simmilar to the request in the link...

About hubs... Hubowners are not so keen on reacting on every report people send, especially in public hubs, where everyone can join. Hubs will never solve this problem. at first - a kick, after some time may be a ban... But that takes time, and during that time it really annoys many users.

There is one more thing, that should be considered. It's a fact, that some users are not very polite, some are annoying. Wouldn't it be great to be able to block them? Then they would be never able to disturb ever again...

I think that possibility of blocking unwanted users, or messages by a key word or phrase, would be an invaluable, and really reasonable feature.

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2005-11-25 16:42

If you want this, you can easily use a clone of DC++ named BCDC++. It has lua-support and you can very simple add your spam-filter as a lua-script.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

Carraya
Posts: 112
Joined: 2004-09-21 11:43

Post by Carraya » 2005-11-25 17:10

ivulfusbar wrote:If you want this, you can easily use a clone of DC++ named BCDC++.


some people could get offended by you calling BCDC a clone... but then again the people that should have been offended by this (garg, sed and sandos) probably know what you mean anyways... :) link to bcdc++ is http://utrum.dyndns.org:8000/
<random funny comment>

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-11-26 11:58

ivulfusbar wrote:If you want this, you can easily use a clone of DC++ named BCDC++. It has lua-support and you can very simple add your spam-filter as a lua-script.


You see, here hides a little problem... What's that lua-script? May be, it's very easy to learn, and stuff, but why can't DC++ have the same? Or even better, so that anyone could make a good filter by him(her)self without ANY special knowledge?

It seems, that noone wants to make DC++ better...

This whole thing is frustrating.

I hope that someone besides me will vote for this thing... And one day it will appear in DC++. I hope I'll still be using this program when it happens...

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2005-11-26 12:25

If you want such a LUA script, I (or some other LUA freak) can try and make it for you. Try to request it here. It can be made easily configurable for the end-user.
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-11-26 13:42

maksrules wrote:It seems, that noone wants to make DC++ better...

That's a rather silly conclusion to jump to.

There are hub-side scripts (in lua, for Ptokax) that aim to stop PM spam entirely, without (as far as I know) manual intervention from the operators. That's what I was referring to.

cyberal
Posts: 360
Joined: 2003-05-16 05:42

Post by cyberal » 2005-11-26 14:10

Use fulDC, it has an ignore feature.. http://ful.dcportal.net
http://whyrar.omfg.se - Guide to RAR and DC behaviour!
http://bodstrom.omfg.se - Bodströmsamhället, Länksamling om hoten mot vår personliga integritet

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-02 13:44

2 cyberal:

Thnx, your topic was the most useful :) I'm already using fulDC, and it seems to be working :)

GargoyleMT:

The conclusion isn't that silly when you think a little on it. First of all, the most useful advices were: "Use different program". This means that the program isn't capable of being as good as other software, not even mentioning to be better! I really was dissapointed by answers in some way, because I expected to get an answer something like "Yes, it is reasonable, if it gets enough votes..." or "It isn't possible due to ...." or something like that. But it seems that developers don't want to make it easier for a user to use the program.

And I checked other proposals. Not too many of them get appreciation, especially from you, GargoyleMT. I don't know why, but you mostly say that it's not useful, hard to implement or something like that... Well, about implementation, may be that's ok, because I understand the value of time. But still, don't you want your software to be the best ever? The most useful, the most popular? If you don't care about that, then you don't need any "proposals" forum...

Besides, hub-operators very often are not that hard-working either. Or may be they're too lame to write a script or smth like that, or don't know about existence of such scripts... So anyway, the user has to be able to control the situation from his point. And besides, I also mentioned, that users have to be capable of blocking annoying users, which don't spam other users, I mean those, which are picking on someone or something like that just for fun.... No hub script is able to control that!

But now, I think, I will survive with fulDC :) Thanx to all who tried to help :)

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-12-02 14:45

maksrules wrote:The conclusion isn't that silly when you think a little on it. First of all, the most useful advices were: "Use different program". This means that the program isn't capable of being as good as other software, not even mentioning to be better! I really was disappointed by answers in some way, because I expected to get an answer something like "Yes, it is reasonable, if it gets enough votes..." or "It isn't possible due to ...." or something like that. But it seems that developers don't want to make it easier for a user to use the program.

To be fair, I'm the only "developer" represented here. And I'm more like arne's assistant.

It is a fair conclusion to reach on this subject, but generalizing from this one suggestion to overall is reaching.

Advertisement in private messages is very similar to unsolicited email, and even complex packages like spamassassin require a lot of work to tweak (for end-users). I'm sure it's no cake walk from the programmer's perspective, either.

If we cannot devote resources in what will certainly become a war of escalation (i.e. make the feature right), not attempting the feature is a fine decision to reach.


maksrules wrote:And I checked other proposals. Not too many of them get appreciation, especially from you, GargoyleMT. I don't know why, but you mostly say that it's not useful, hard to implement or something like that... Well, about implementation, may be that's ok, because I understand the value of time. But still, don't you want your software to be the best ever? The most useful, the most popular? If you don't care about that, then you don't need any "proposals" forum...

Users who want features generally want them immediately, so I try to steer users towards immediate solutions to their needs - other clients, workarounds, etc.. I do criticize some features, or point out that they're already in the feature tracker. If you think I don't want DC++ to have useful features that augment the functioning of the program, you're mistaken, or I've somehow become an evil terrible person without realizing it.

maksrules wrote:And besides, I also mentioned, that users have to be capable of blocking annoying users, which don't spam other users, I mean those, which are picking on someone or something like that just for fun.... No hub script is able to control that!

Isn't "don't harass other users" a typical hub rule? I realize that not all hubs are actively policed, but that is the role of an operator. If certain hubs are overrun by PM spam, I expect users to leave those hubs and migrate to hubs without those problems; in a way similar to natural selection.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2005-12-02 16:56

maksrules wrote:And I checked other proposals. Not too many of them get appreciation, especially from you, GargoyleMT.
What kind of appreciation did you have in mind? How often is there anyone that gives a compliment to arnetheduck, GargoyleMT or any other developer? You seem to forget that all of us are doing this for FUN! Just because someone give a suggestion on how to improve DC++, doesn't mean it's a good suggestion.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-12-02 22:17

ullner wrote:Just because someone give a suggestion on how to improve DC++, doesn't mean it's a good suggestion.

It is nice to see what users want, and feature suggestions help. Users are what make DC++ popular, but it's true that not every feature can be implemented. Determining the popularity of a request (or of a bug) is what the votes in bugzilla and the crash collector are supposed to accomplish. They're both supposed to help with triage. And triage is necessary whether we're doing this for fun or as an occupation...


Respect is a two way street, and that's why I've coded specific features for users who appreciated them. But that's neither here nor there. Thanks for trying to explain the other side of the coin to maksrules, ullner.

Pothead
Posts: 223
Joined: 2005-01-15 06:55

Post by Pothead » 2005-12-03 06:01

maksrules wrote:There is one more thing, that should be considered. It's a fact, that some users are not very polite, some are annoying. Wouldn't it be great to be able to block them? Then they would be never able to disturb ever again...
Cannot dispute that a ignore function works very good for them. :)

maksrules wrote:Besides, hub-operators very often are not that hard-working either. Or may be they're too lame to write a script or smth like that, or don't know about existence of such scripts... So anyway, the user has to be able to control the situation from his point.
They don't need to write a script. There is 100's already in existance. It just requires the hub-owner to stop being so lazy.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-03 12:21

to Pothead:
"They don't need to write a script. There is 100's already in existance. It just requires the hub-owner to stop being so lazy."

Yes, I know, that many scripts are already written. However, I used lots of hubs, and now my proposal exists. Hub operators just don't want / know how to / are lazy to use scripts or may be those scripts are not sufficient. Believe me, I'm a user who tried out through more than one hub...

2 ullner:
" What kind of appreciation did you have in mind? How often is there anyone that gives a compliment to arnetheduck, GargoyleMT or any other developer? You seem to forget that all of us are doing this for FUN! Just because someone give a suggestion on how to improve DC++, doesn't mean it's a good suggestion."

I mean, that some ideas may look stupid to you, however, to users they seem really reasonable. Try out as many public hubs as you can, try them for a week, try downloading something, and you'll see, that it's not that pretty and easy as you're saying. Op's are lazy, don't manage to control everything and check every report. A user NEEDS to have some cotrol from his side to make it easy and comfortable to use the program.

I understand, that you're doing this not for profit, but just because you like it. But if you want users to be glad for using YOUR software, you have to try out being a user of your programms. If you don't care about users' comfort, then may be it would be cool to try out writing viruses? Then you sure will not have to worry about your users. Sorry, if this sounds insulting, what I mean is, that if you release smth for users, you have to take care of them.

Yes, you don't see any thanx to developers, however, there are no forums devoted to this. I think, that if there was one, you would get lots of thanksgiving words :)

2 GargoyleMT:
"It is a fair conclusion to reach on this subject, but generalizing from this one suggestion to overall is reaching. "

As I said, I checked other proposals before writing this cnclusion, because I don't want to be unfair. I must admit, that first I made the conclusion, but before writing anything, I checked the forum.

"Advertisement in private messages is very similar to unsolicited email, and even complex packages like spamassassin require a lot of work to tweak (for end-users). I'm sure it's no cake walk from the programmer's perspective, either.

If we cannot devote resources in what will certainly become a war of escalation (i.e. make the feature right), not attempting the feature is a fine decision to reach. "

Yes, writing good spam filters is a difficult task. But I would better propose a little different thing. I think, that a piece of your software should check for words, or phrases in a PM, and if matches found, do not let this PM appear, unless the user has already started the conversation (that is, the user with the filter has already sent smth to the one who is filtered). I don't think it is very difficult to make "Find" function (like in Notepad), and search every new PM for user-defind phrases. If matches found, ignore the PM. I know, that it's not hard to implement such things, because I have made simmilar things, but in a DOS program while studying Turbo Pascal... I think,this would be the best, because it doesn't require much work from a programmer, and it is easy to use and customize. Regular expression support would be also great, however, not crusial.

I think, this should work, because it worked for me in my e-meil filter. Of cource, this will not stop EVERY spammer, but at least it will make impossible to advertize any (mostly porno) sites in PM, unless you're chatting already with that user - so that you could still exchange links.

"Users who want features generally want them immediately, so I try to steer users towards immediate solutions to their needs - other clients, workarounds, etc.. I do criticize some features, or point out that they're already in the feature tracker."

If you would tell them, that a feature is reasonable, they at least would hope they will find it one day. However, immediate solutions is a good idea,too... You're good at critisizing as well, even if idea isn't that bad..

The last thing, probably, I would like to tell you now, is that bugzilla thing is rather confusing for the first-timers. When I wanted to request a feature, i was suugested to report a bug... Now I know, that you have to report a bug, and there write your request. But I think, that a bug - that is something, that there IS in a software, and a request - is a report, that something is MISSED, or DOESN'T exist in the software. So if bug reports would be separate from feature requests, it would be much easier... Couse in help I only found an explanation how to report a bug, but I didn't find, that making a request is the same procedure...

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-12-04 10:21

maksrules wrote:So if bug reports would be separate from feature requests, it would be much easier... Couse in help I only found an explanation how to report a bug, but I didn't find, that making a request is the same procedure...

When we were using the trackers at sourceforge, we did have separate bug and feature request trackers. I was always moving an item back and forth, since the line between a bug and a feature is blurry. That's why we're using bugzilla. It lets us morph a request any way we want, track duplicates, let users easily monitor the progress of a given request, and vote. It does have a learning curve, and so some people will be discouraged. However, I think almost every feature request from the old tracker has now been placed in Bugzilla by users, and every so often, we get users who've learned bugzilla enough to request a feature that is already in it. :)


The word filtering is probably a good approach. If you made a system log message when a rule was hit (along with a couple details), you could even give feedback in case a user had made a rule that was too wide. The next step for the spammers would probably be word misspelling, as they seemed to try in email. That would be harder to protect against.


The rest of your points are valid to varying degrees. I don't think you give us enough credit, in thinking we're isolated from end-users' complaints or suggestions, or don't use the program in the same way they do. Así es la vida.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

re, and another proposal.

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-06 14:32

GargoyleMT wrote:When we were using the trackers at sourceforge, we did have separate bug and feature request trackers. I was always moving an item back and forth, since the line between a bug and a feature is blurry. That's why we're using bugzilla. It lets us morph a request any way we want, track duplicates, let users easily monitor the progress of a given request, and vote. It does have a learning curve, and so some people will be discouraged. However, I think almost every feature request from the old tracker has now been placed in Bugzilla by users, and every so often, we get users who've learned bugzilla enough to request a feature that is already in it. :)


Well, if this system now performs better, then I have no more suggestions on this topic :)

GargoyleMT wrote:The word filtering is probably a good approach. If you made a system log message when a rule was hit (along with a couple details), you could even give feedback in case a user had made a rule that was too wide. The next step for the spammers would probably be word misspelling, as they seemed to try in email. That would be harder to protect against.


I have never encountered misspelling... However, this really might become a disaster. Hmm... Solving that problem will be a real headache. But first present problems are to be solved :)

GargoyleMT wrote:The rest of your points are valid to varying degrees. I don't think you give us enough credit, in thinking we're isolated from end-users' complaints or suggestions, or don't use the program in the same way they do. Así es la vida.


May be I was too cathegorical, but still, a developer can never foresee every problem a user encounters. When I read the proposals forum, I really noticed that some ideas would be quite useful, however, you call them unneccessary. Of cource, not all ideas are actually needed. But some of them would be invaluable if they were added to "advanced" features, or something like that. I don't want to teach you how to live, so I won't spit a word on this issue again :)

And I've got one more idea on the idea of blocking messages. What if a user would have a possibility to stop receiving PM's at all? Unless, for example, this was a PM from an OP. Or from a friednlist (optional). If someone wants to get in touch with you - they can write in main chat - "hey, man, I wanna talk to you..." Tthis would guarantee spam-free life until you decide to chat to someone :) I think, this option would't take many efforts from programmers :) And btw. Should I post my last idea in a different topic?

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2005-12-06 14:48

For every extra feature you add, mainting and understanding the code gets worse and worse. To keep DC++ clean of many features that have wondered into different clones has its advantages. It adds less buggs to the core.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Re: re, and another proposal.

Post by ullner » 2005-12-06 15:17

maksrules wrote:If someone wants to get in touch with you - they can write in main chat - "hey, man, I wanna talk to you..." Tthis would guarantee spam-free life until you decide to chat to someone
You have the option 'Open private messages in their own window' that partly solve that.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-07 12:53

ivulfusbar wrote:For every extra feature you add, mainting and understanding the code gets worse and worse. To keep DC++ clean of many features that have wondered into different clones has its advantages. It adds less buggs to the core.


I know it's not that easy to understand even your own program if it's big enough and you haven't looked at it for some time. However, if a project is well organized, and there are enough comments, then it isn't that dificult to catch what's going on in the algorithm. Even for a person, who is looking at it for the first time. It all depends on function names, variable names, splitting project to several piesces, and so on... Everything depends on organization of your work. Of course, a big project isn't easy to organize. However, Windows (not the best example) and Linux somehow work... Of cource, in a smaller project, it's easier to debug, but again, in a well organized project, it's much easier to detect a bug. On the other hand, if you never rewrite the core in every new release, but just copy it, then there are no sources for bugs :) If something is changed, then every new part has to be debugged thoroughlly. I know, it's not easy to follow all rules... :)

And besides, personally, I wouldn't like to change my client every time I miss some feature and find it somewhere else. Of course, that's my personal opinion...

ullner wrote: You have the option 'Open private messages in their own window' that partly solve that.


Well, it's not the same. Of course, it may solve something... Hm... I don't know... Not sure. Still, I think, that some other ways (like discussed above) would be better.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-12-07 12:59

maksrules wrote:I know it's not that easy to understand even your own program if it's big enough and you haven't looked at it for some time. However, if a project is well organized, and there are enough comments, then it isn't that dificult to catch what's going on in the algorithm.

fusbar wouldn't have said it if it weren't true.

DC++ needs less options, and better graphical organization of the ones it does have. It's hard enough for me to find the right setting, and I know what they all do. I can't imagine how hard it is for a casual computer user to find the setting to keep file lists (for example) when DC++ is exited.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-10 12:57

GargoyleMT wrote:fusbar wouldn't have said it if it weren't true.


Well, still, I think, that all of this depends on organization of your work. I know, it's not easy, especially when you're doing it not for profit and noone pays you for this, but organization would solve lots of problems. You don't need to see all code to understand how a piece works.

GargoyleMT wrote:DC++ needs less options, and better graphical organization of the ones it does have. It's hard enough for me to find the right setting, and I know what they all do. I can't imagine how hard it is for a casual computer user to find the setting to keep file lists (for example) when DC++ is exited.


Well, yes, understanding and finding features is a problem, 'cause I already have helped lots of users who didn't even know how to start downloading... However, I didn't have any problem with finding a particular setting - DC++ isn't that complicated, the only problem is that long list of settings.... But I don't think, that DC++ needs less options. Just some of them could be hidden until you press "Advanced" button, or smth like that...

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2005-12-10 19:27

maksrules wrote:But I don't think, that DC++ needs less options. Just some of them could be hidden until you press "Advanced" button, or smth like that...

What, Settings->Advanced->Experts Only->No, really, I'm an expert->Show me the super-hidden options? DC++ already has what you're talking about, and it seems inadequate.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2005-12-10 21:23

cologic wrote:What, Settings->Advanced->Experts Only->No, really, I'm an expert->Show me the super-hidden options?
I'd actually prefer a re-name of 'Experts only'. It was a bad choice by me from the beginning.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2005-12-13 15:26

cologic wrote:What, Settings->Advanced->Experts Only->No, really, I'm an expert->Show me the super-hidden options? DC++ already has what you're talking about, and it seems inadequate.


Well, may be I wasn't precise enough. What I meant was, that all those advanced options now are situated in the same place (" Settings->Advanced"). May be some of them could be taken to other places. And in those different setting tabs there might be one extra - "Advanced". Like, for example, "Automatically search for alternative download locations" could be placed in "Settings->Downloads->Advanced", or smth like that. I think this would be reasonable, because it is related to downloads, and it is an advanced setting. That way more options could be dislocated in settings menu, and they would be quite easy to set. But whatever it will be called, the point is to place those options to different locations, but not into one heap. One heap is great, when there aren't too many of things to set.

ullner wrote: I'd actually prefer a re-name of 'Experts only'. It was a bad choice by me from the beginning.


Well, may be it's not that bad name :)

Ratti
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-07-29 11:41
Contact:

Post by Ratti » 2006-07-29 11:45

I think a good suggestion for blocking private message spam is to have an option that only pops up private messages from users who are downloading or uploading, or downloaded or uploaded from you. I find these are the only people I ever try to communicate with and are unable to because most of us block pms. Think about it, those are the only times you ever need the PM feature

imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Post by imb » 2006-07-29 16:04

Ratti wrote:I think a good suggestion for blocking private message spam is to have an option that only pops up private messages from users who are downloading or uploading, or downloaded or uploaded from you. I find these are the only people I ever try to communicate with and are unable to because most of us block pms. Think about it, those are the only times you ever need the PM feature


Just because you use the client that way that does not mean others do. That feature is tantamount to blocking all PMs, which is bad for the DC community.

Anyway the solution to this problem can quite easily be done on the hub side. All you need is Ptokax and Lucifer 666 :) I think I've pretty much solved the spam problem whilst still giving users the freedom to type (non spam) URLs out.
"Every Englishman must have a hobby. Some like to collect the stamp, some like to make the jam, but the most fun is to a kill a little animal with a shotgun or rip them up with wild dog."

Ratti
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-07-29 11:41
Contact:

Post by Ratti » 2006-07-29 16:40

Well, I currently have all PM's blocked because I get a few hundred pop-up spam windows in the course of a day. Hub owners are not taking measures to reduce spam and sometimes are the perpetrators themselves, sending messages to vote on some site to increase a rating somewhere. Such a feature of blocking all that are not exchanging with each other would enable me to use private messaging again. I know this could be bad for 'the community' to filter messages, consider that an alternative to those who choose to block 100%. You still have your 'friends' list.

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2006-07-29 17:31

If so, i recomend clients with LUA-support. If you are somewhat knolwedgeable in copy-pasting code around you can easily run a simple script that blocks PM on certain events.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

maksrules
Posts: 10
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:08

Post by maksrules » 2006-08-02 12:46

I think that users should be able to use any DC client, so PM-blocking should be implemented in the kernel of DC++, so there would be no need of LUA or any other script support, or any scripting shuld be imlemented in all clients. As ridiculous it may sound, but there are some incompatibilities between different clients, and once I met a problem of joining a club because my client didn't have some kind of support... And I had changed to that client because I was seeking better ways of blocking spam...

Anyway, it seems that the best way for now is to force all PM messages to appear in main. However you also loose some communication abilities.

And besides from allowing only PM from downloaders/uploaders, it would be great to allow favourites t chat, too. That way most of problems would be solved, I think.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2006-08-14 19:11

Ratti wrote:Hub owners are not taking measures to reduce spam and sometimes are the perpetrators themselves, sending messages to vote on some site to increase a rating somewhere.

Leave their hubs and join ones that listen to you as a user and value your presence.

Pothead
Posts: 223
Joined: 2005-01-15 06:55

Post by Pothead » 2006-08-15 04:07

GargoyleMT wrote:
Ratti wrote:Hub owners are not taking measures to reduce spam and sometimes are the perpetrators themselves, sending messages to vote on some site to increase a rating somewhere.

Leave their hubs and join ones that listen to you as a user and value your presence.
Put D2AF in the hublist filter, and them hubs are protected from spammers, but still let normal users posts links and such. :)
And rest assured, if you are unlucky get spammed in one of them hubs, be happy with the knowledge that the spammer will be get banned in about 30 seconds. :)

burek
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-22 18:44

Post by burek » 2006-12-22 18:55

I just couldn't believe that people (not just any people but developers) are suggesting things like this:
"Leave their hubs and join ones that listen to you as a user and value your presence."

This was really lame and it sounds more like "Come on, we've done so much work and we are tired and we are too lazy to even understand what you are asking, not to mention how lazy we are to even think of implementing it.."

Long story short, every serious chat/community based client has an ignore option so it is really not necessairy to argue about if it is needed. Simply it is.

Also, logs, which contain informations needed for administrators to succesfuly identify spam and rude behaviour is not a small thing to analyze. So, basicaly, I'm sorry to say this, but you are just trying to find a lame excuses to prove that the suggestion of maksrules is everything but useful. You're so wrong. I'm sorry, but you are.

Also, I wanted just to post a question about "why there is no scripting feature in dc++", but now I don't even need to ask that question. I already know the answer, unfortunately.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2006-12-23 10:52

I have no idea what kind of hubs you're in, but I seldom recieve PM spam in the public hubs I frequent (that I use for downloading). The 'spam' I recieve in them are from bots or operators (and it would probably be a bad idea to be able to block bots/operators).

The reason this "feature" (I see it more of a "I don't want to recieve messages from people asking for a slot" or "I don't want to see *any* PM") hasn't been implemented is because none of the people working on DC++ has felt it was worth the time coding for inclusion in DC++. I can only guess, but the initial work to make this feature possible (blocking at all) seem to a lot. Then we need to tweak it, adding restrictions for blocking eg operators or bots, or blocking specific words or phrases, or not blocking PMs from favorite users or being able to block on a share-size basis or... The list goes on. This feature is huge. There are so many aspects that need to be taken into consideration for making it even remotely a good idea. Personally, I definitely don't want to spend that much time working on a feature that I consider pointless (the hubs are in a much better position of blocking messages). The suggestion to use a different client is because some of the work I spoke about has already been done. It would make much more sense to have one of the authors of those mods submit their code, than that someone would write the feature from the ground. I doubt most users care if they use DC++ or BCDC++ or fulDC or... (Both BCDC++ and fulDC keep track of DC++'s base, so they get all the feature in DC++ anyway).

Blocking messages per se is a bad feature because chatting is a central part of Direct Connect. Blocking certain messages have valid points, but it is very difficult to control the feature (from a developer point of view) so users don't abuse it. Some users spam. Sure, we know. But who are in the best position of blocking them? The hub can block messages on a greater scale (instead of having 5000 clients having their client set to block 'hello', the hub owner can do it). The time spent on working on this feature is, in my opinion, a waste of resources. Resources, which could be spent elsewhere (e.g. improving ADC support).
burek wrote:Long story short, every serious chat/community based client has an ignore option so it is really not necessairy to argue about if it is needed. Simply it is.
E.g., the IRC network Freenode "protect itself" from spam by requiring user registration before they can send private messages. If people sign up and spam, they will get reported and removed. I have never recieved any spam on that network.
burek wrote:Also, I wanted just to post a question about "why there is no scripting feature in dc++", but now I don't even need to ask that question. I already know the answer, unfortunately.
That is because no one has coded it. Period. There's no mystery. And if someone did code it, submitted the patch and the patch was rejected, then it was surely because of bloat. There's no reason to have bloat in DC++; That's why there's modifications. And that is where bloat-features belong.

It all come down to time to implement a feature and the usefulness of the outcome. The time spent on writing these features will (probably) be several magnitudes larger than their benifits.

Locked