For the love of all that is good in this world... we need ..

Archived discussion about features (predating the use of Bugzilla as a bug and feature tracker)

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
NyteBlade
Posts: 1
Joined: 2004-01-27 17:57

For the love of all that is good in this world... we need ..

Post by NyteBlade » 2004-01-27 18:00

an ignore feature. i am getting so sick and tired of having some little asspimple of a person spamming me endlessly with private messages, or in the hub itself. is there already an ignore feature that im not aware of? if so what is it. if not, it would be a much needed install!

Sedulus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 687
Joined: 2003-01-04 09:32
Contact:

Post by Sedulus » 2004-01-27 18:54

several clones have this already, BCDC++ for instance
http://dc.selwerd.nl/hublist.xml.bz2
http://www.b.ali.btinternet.co.uk/DCPlusPlus/index.html (TheParanoidOne's DC++ Guide)
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/dc (BSOD2600's Direct Connect FAQ)

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-01-27 23:50

i didn't think bcdc's ignore feature did anything to private messages? (thou I haven't checked in a while)

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

Post by cologic » 2004-01-28 01:31

No, but using the Lua support allows one to do this...

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-01-28 02:35

cologic wrote:No, but using the Lua support allows one to do this...
Also allows people to express their feelings on certain beverages

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

Post by cologic » 2004-01-28 02:40

Nothing wrong with a little bier.

[B]bongretarded
Posts: 47
Joined: 2004-01-27 19:16
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Contact:

Post by [B]bongretarded » 2004-01-28 18:00

hehehehehehe ;) dam twink and his CODING abilitys ;)
A friend indeed is a friend in need a friend with weed is better

Sedulus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 687
Joined: 2003-01-04 09:32
Contact:

Post by Sedulus » 2004-01-28 23:15

hm.. my bad Twink..
I did think the /ignore actually did ignore pm's
fortunately I've never had to use it ;)
http://dc.selwerd.nl/hublist.xml.bz2
http://www.b.ali.btinternet.co.uk/DCPlusPlus/index.html (TheParanoidOne's DC++ Guide)
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/dc (BSOD2600's Direct Connect FAQ)

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-01-28 23:44

[B]bongretarded wrote:hehehehehehe ;) dam twink and his CODING abilitys ;)
bong I told u it had nothing to do with me, it was a bcdc 'feature'.
Actually quite alot can be done with the lua scripts, just have to convince people to actually use it.

maxxyme
Posts: 9
Joined: 2004-02-17 17:14

Post by maxxyme » 2004-03-05 16:59

Sorry, but... are you sure the /ignore command does work ???
:shock:

(it's just because a f****** guy was annoying me on a hub just because i'm french)
So i though i could use some commands (like on IRC) to ignore his messages (PM's).

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-03-05 17:34

maxxyme wrote:Sorry, but... are you sure the /ignore command does work ???
:shock:

(it's just because a f****** guy was annoying me on a hub just because i'm french)
So i though i could use some commands (like on IRC) to ignore his messages (PM's).
ignore doesn't stop private messages. However you can always keep the PM window open and minimize it, then you barely notice.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-08 00:34

Just wanted to bring this thread back up. I think this option would be a GREAT thing to have. Particularly useful against unwanted private messages...
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-11 20:30

Cabadam wrote:Just wanted to bring this thread back up. I think this option would be a GREAT thing to have. Particularly useful against unwanted private messages...
There was a huge discussion about this. Would an /ignore command be fundamentally bad if it allowed a user to ignore an OP's chat? Specifically, you're breaking the rules, the OP messages you. Your client eats his PM, since you've ignored him. He kicks you.

Is this good? Is this bad?

Same goes with main chat - is it good or bad to have a client that will let you ignore it?

Seisled
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-11-06 22:31

Post by Seisled » 2004-03-11 20:37

Would an /ignore command be fundamentally bad if it allowed a user to ignore an OP's chat?
What if it were made so OPs were impossible to ignore?

Then again, I'm not sure I want this feature as I like the openness of the DC community.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-11 20:39

GargoyleMT wrote: There was a huge discussion about this. Would an /ignore command be fundamentally bad if it allowed a user to ignore an OP's chat? Specifically, you're breaking the rules, the OP messages you. Your client eats his PM, since you've ignored him. He kicks you.

Is this good? Is this bad?

Same goes with main chat - is it good or bad to have a client that will let you ignore it?
Hey - if someone ignores an OP and as a result gets kicked, thats their own stupid fault. If you block an OP, you just better be very sure you aren't breaking any rules. Its still a choice that should be available to each user.
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-11 20:43

I think the advantages outweigh any known disadvantages. Because we can already think of extraneous situations then we can simply add those into the client as well. Such as a featured option to always allow operators to have a slot for your filelist, there can be an option (by default on) to never ignore operator status. I don’t necessarily feel this exact option would be needed, but if the user wanted to do something (maybe with a confirmation or warning?), and knew its consequences, why should they be limited?
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

Seisled
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-11-06 22:31

Post by Seisled » 2004-03-11 20:49

I think any ignore function should require you to select specific users to ignore. If there were a general ignore function then I see numerous problems that could come up (even if it were impossible to ignore OPs). One such scenario is if you're downloading a video from someone, but want more information about it (such as if it is subtitled or dubbed in a foreign language). If that person is ignoring all non-OPs then there's no way to get this information short of speaking about it in main-chat and hoping someone knowledgeable about the file gives a response.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-11 20:56

Definately - I think that was the intent here - to just ignore specific users. I wasn't referring to this to be a global "do not receive messages". Just a way to block those obnoxious few who do inhabit this world...
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-11 20:57

Seisled wrote:I think any ignore function should require you to select specific users to ignore.
Lets make sure we are all clear here. We're not talking about ignoring any and every communication possible are we?
Seisled wrote:If that person is ignoring all non-OPs then there's no way to get this information
Well that's pretty much the intent on the person who chose to ignore you. If they choose to ignore you (or a group of people), would they expect to be able to receive messages from you?

What about an idea to have a message sent back only once, similar to an auto-away, telling them you've been ignored.
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

Seisled
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-11-06 22:31

Post by Seisled » 2004-03-11 21:22

What about an idea to have a message sent back only once, similar to an auto-away, telling them you've been ignored.
Well, if it's going to send them a message saying you've been ignored, it might as well provide the content of your initial message as well. Then again, if there's some sort of counter distinguishing who you've received messages from in order to make use of this function it seems like it could get overly complex. Or would you have to keep the initial private chat window open in order for it to not send you a second message saying someone's been ignored? This could also become cumbersome.
The best way seems to me to just implement the ignore function so that you can only select one user at a time to be ignored. This would avoid people selecting entire hubs and ignoring them. This appears to be what everyone was talking about initally anyway, so no worries.
I would also add that it would probably be best if the ignore function were hub-specific. For instance, if user X123 is ignored in hub D then X123 should not be ignored in hub C unless specified. This avoids a different user with the same nick from being blocked in a seperate hub. Perhaps everyone already had this in mind as well, but I just thought I'd mention it just in case.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-11 23:10

Seisled wrote:I would also add that it would probably be best if the ignore function were hub-specific. For instance, if user X123 is ignored in hub D then X123 should not be ignored in hub C unless specified. This avoids a different user with the same nick from being blocked in a seperate hub.
I agree.

Don't agree with the 'one user at a time' part though... if a user WANTS to block out a large group, that should be the user's prerogative.

As far as notifying the blocked user, I think the simplest approach would be to send an automatic return message everytime the blocked person sends a message. I mean, sure it might be annoying to keep getting "you've been blocked" - but hey, you were blocked, did you expect it to magically work if you kept trying to send messages?
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Seisled
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-11-06 22:31

Post by Seisled » 2004-03-12 00:31

As far as notifying the blocked user, I think the simplest approach would be to send an automatic return message everytime the blocked person sends a message.
I thought the original idea here was to send the person who initiated the blocking a message indicating someone attempted to communicate with them, but was blocked.
As for notifying the blocked user in order to tell them that their message was blocked, that could be implimented the way you described and would be pretty straightforward I believe. In my previous post I was referring to potential complications in notifying the blocker, not the person being blocked.

My problem with a user easily being able to block out an entire hub harkens back to my earlier post about not being able to get necessary information about someone's share if they have done this. In my opinion, the purpose of an ignore function should be solely to ignore certain specific users who are annoying and troublesome in a given hub. Easily blocking out the private messages from an entire hub doesn't seem to fit this purpose and would undoubtedly make things more difficult in a scenario such as the one I described in my previous post.

As a side note, if you're in a scenario where you really do want to block messages from every user in a hub because they're all annoying and/or troublemakers, then why are you choosing to stick around in a hub like that at all?

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-12 00:48

In my mind, ignore is just another feature for the user-context menu. If someone wants to get the file lists of everyone on a hub - Control-A > Right Click > Get File List. I don't think they will be prevented from doing the same if Ignore gets in.

If a user wants to shoot himself in the foot, it sounds good to me.
(an option to no ignore ops seems like another weak way of preventing foot shooting)
(auto-responses like "i'm ignoring you" seem childish and counterproductive)
(i really like parenthesis)

Seisled
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-11-06 22:31

Post by Seisled » 2004-03-12 01:07

Honestly, I can't say I've personally experienced any great need for the ignore feature in my everyday DC existance. Maybe that's because anyone truly annoying seems to get banned rather quickly in the hubs I hang out in. I have a pretty large share with popular files, but people are always polite when they ask me for a slot. Anyways, I guess I'm just rather loathe to potentially put a damper on people being able to ask for slots for files that are important to them, and also get more info about files they're downloading. If you ask me, these are important aspects of the DC community. But oh well... :?

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-12 11:53

Seisled wrote:Anyways, I guess I'm just rather loathe to potentially put a damper on people being able to ask for slots for files that are important to them, and also get more info about files they're downloading.

And as long as thats the case - that won't be a problem. Just because the ability is there doesn't mean all of a sudden everyone is going to ignore everyone. Like in your case, you say you do not encounter any "rude" people on your hubs. In that case, you wouldn't have anyone blocked, so no problem there.
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-13 02:50

Seisled wrote:I thought the original idea here was to send the person who initiated the blocking a message indicating someone attempted to communicate with them, but was blocked.
This is not what I intended at all. The message would be from the blocker to the person sending the message.
Also, the reason I would only want it send one time is because it was simply meant as nice message to inform them that this message and all further messages would be blocked. (And this option of auto sending a response should be an option.) Any further communication from the ignored wouldn't get a response, that way the sender couldn't influence the blockers client in any way. (I know this is an extreme case, but for example could stop a denial of service. I would rather not explain this DOS any further since it would be so obscure. I follow this line of thinking based on my same reasoning that an IDS on a public service shouldn't ban any communication from a supposed IP attempting to intrude or cause havoc. You can ask this about me privately.)

This can cause complications however. I'm not aware of how private messages are sent from a user to another user. If it passes though the hub and then only informs the recipient of the sender’s username (and not their IP,) a situation could arise in that a new person enters the hub with the same name after the previous person left.
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-13 09:53

Well, you wouldn't want to ban via IP either. I mean, there are enough dial-up users that would render that useless. Although, I suppose the person could just change their username too. Hmm... I wonder how hard it is to get the MAC address of the person's network card ;)
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-13 10:00

Cabadam wrote:Well, you wouldn't want to ban via IP either.
IP would be the safest way to do it, unless you wanted to also match IP with just the specific instance of a username. I see no reasoning to suggest that DC++ should have a GUID either.
Cabadam wrote:I mean, there are enough dial-up users that would render that useless.
Using this reasoning would also render useless any ban feature for a hub.
Cabadam wrote:I wonder how hard it is to get the MAC address of the person's network card
Impossible as soon as any data is routed onto another network, which would commonly happen many times over the internet.
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-13 10:07

Qbert wrote:IP would be the safest way to do it
Out of curiousity, why? I'm not saying it is or isn't - but I kinda thought it would just have the same effectiveness as banning a username.
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-13 10:18

Qbert wrote:IP would be the safest way to do it
I had forgotten the more general use of the ignore feature and how DC++ works. At a minimum it could simply be a username, based on the fact that hub chat conversations don't give any information as to the IP of a person talking, (or even in a PM, I assume.)
Qbert wrote:I'm not aware of how private messages are sent from a user to another user.
Again I have to ask, are PM's direct in the direct-connect fashion? Or do they pass through the hub?

My intention on doing it by IP was to safeguard the chance that the user tried to change their username. This would require the client to check the IP for every new person that enters the hub (probably not good.) But anyways, I now think that in most cases no reference whatsoever should be sent to the ignored person if they tried to PM a person who was ignoring them, because if there was, the person would have suddenly determined they were being ignored and simply change their username.

If I choose to ignore you, I shouldn't be thinking about the words you are telling me. Especially if those words are "Hey, can you hear me? Are you listening to me?" In which I would not have heard and so I could not respond with "No, I'm choosing to ignore you instead."

I will now instead say that the safest way to do it would be by a DC++ GUID, but I do not see enough reasoning to add this and so the safest way doesn't get to be considered.
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-13 12:05

Qbert wrote:I see no reasoning to suggest that DC++ should have a GUID either.
ADC has a guid =)
Qbert wrote:
Cabadam wrote:I wonder how hard it is to get the MAC address of the person's network card
Impossible as soon as any data is routed onto another network, which would commonly happen many times over the internet.
Not impossible, but it relies upon a misconfiguration. If the user hasn't firewalled themselves, try "nbtstat -A <ip>".

Code: Select all

Local Area Connection:
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{896E4AD8-06E8-436F-92B0-1F7287FCE20D}:
Node IpAddress: [xx.xx.xx.xx] Scope Id: []

           NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table

       Name               Type         Status
    ---------------------------------------------
    TPEDERZANI-XP  <00>  UNIQUE      Registered
    TPEDERZANI-XP  <20>  UNIQUE      Registered

    MAC Address = 00-B0-D0-76-E5-0C
Which is a somewhat obscured output from me using it on my work machine (through a VPN).

Qbert wrote:Again I have to ask, are PM's direct in the direct-connect fashion? Or do they pass through the hub?
They're through the hub, not direct.

Qbert
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-06-07 03:12

Post by Qbert » 2004-03-13 23:59

GargoyleMT wrote:

Code: Select all

NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table
MAC Address = 00-B0-D0-76-E5-0C
I wasn't aware that there exists a service that by default passes on the MAC address as data. Because otherwise I would expect the packets you receive to have the MAC address of the nearest router.
I can no longer say its impossible, assuming the person is running the NetBIOS service without firewalling it and that their ISP allows this service to be routed. (Most ISP's firewall this for your protection.)
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-14 10:41

Qbert wrote:I can no longer say its impossible, assuming the person is running the NetBIOS service without firewalling it and that their ISP allows this service to be routed. (Most ISP's firewall this for your protection.)
=) I'm good for nit-picking things like that. The MAC given out is useless in this context though - unless you just scan them again.

Even the Client ID in ADC concerns some people - there will probably be an option to make it per session-per hub in addition to semi-permanent... whenever ADC actually gets coded.

Cabadam
Posts: 8
Joined: 2003-07-20 20:35

Post by Cabadam » 2004-03-14 14:05

Well, I guess then we would just need to consider what would be the 'best' option.
In this case, maybe a choice betweeen IP and username? Context menu has "Ignore by IP" and "Ignore by Username"? And of course, somewhere in the settings there needs to be a place to un-ignore these.

While there are ways around both of these, there are ways around most everything out there. If someone is *really* that determined to do it, they will.
Adam Clauss
[email protected]

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2004-03-14 14:10

Ignoring by IP is... impractical. DC++ only "knows" IPs for hubs that send out $UserIP. PMs are sent through the hub, so "ignore by IP" would only make DC++ check their known IP (if it has it) against your IPs that are ignored - the IP being a marginally more trusted way to identify a user (marginal because of those with dynamic IPs).

Dick Manitoba
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-12-18 12:28
Location: Canada

Post by Dick Manitoba » 2004-03-18 21:05

The /ignore command merely serves those people who are unwilling to learn how to ignore themselves "internally". It also allows people to act indifferent to others, and not simply those who are ignored. It also enables a pest to get ignored by the very people that shouldn't ignore anybody - the hub's owners, and moderators. I've been in IRC channels where admins have people on ignore, and have to be ASKED to un-ignore a person in order to see what an idiot is doing in the channel.

Hub owners are the ones that best deal with pests anyway since they can permanently stop everyone from dealing with them.

If minimizing the PM window doesn't solve the problem, or a request to the hub owner, then just leave the hub. There are far too many well run hubs around to deal with one which may have good shares, but poor management.

Locked