Option to ban an IP

Description: 
With previous soulseek clients (I'm assuming it's still the same for this new client) I've noticed that sometimes when I've banned a user , they sometimes simply reconnect with a differnet username and are then able to download again (until I reban them). If you incorporate ban by IP this should help prevent this happening.
0
Your rating: None
1
Average: 1 (25 votes)

Comments

option to ignore IP too would be useful too because spammers also change nicknames

That's less practical because you don't normally have the IP address of everyone in the same room as you, whereas you usually have the IP address of someone you're uploading to.

You don't? In Nicotine+ I can request the IP address of any online peer, whether they're in a room I participate in, in my buddy list, uploading to me, downloading from me, chatting with me...

That would be a good thing to have in SoulseekQt as well, by the way. I'll post a new feature request for that.

As a long time-user/donor since the earliest incarnations of SLSK I will not defend banning IP's for the following scenario:

Sure there are a few freeloaders and spammers out there. I am NOT one of them. On average I'm sharing {non-userlist!} anywhere between 7000-20,000+ mp3's with a correctly configured router/firewall/etc. People increasingly over the years will ban you for downloading (1) folder with no excessive amount of files enclosed, say 30-40 mp3's. >>>Even when following their own rules/user info which reads "only one folder at a time."<<<

To combat these unreasonable a**holes I fully support the log-out-relog-back-in-as-a-different username to complete the single file/small folder for which I was ridiculously banned without any explanation(s). Especially if this file/folder is rare and cannot be found amongst other users month after wishlist month. It is my duty as a SoulSeeker to bypass their non-sharing selfishness at all costs...even if I have to keep relogging a different name each day until every single megabyte is finished.

Banning IP's an option?!? What a retarded proposition/question. Absolutely NOT. The username blocking works just fine thank you very much!

I absolutely agree that banning is being overused, and I always feel uncomfortable when I'm being asked to extend ban functionality. There are many different reasons someone who's downloading from you isn't sharing anything. I myself have been banned for that reason when I have another PC and a second account set up to share. And I rarely ever got a response trying to talk to the uploader. My stance on the matter is that if you're really that touchy about who's downloading from you, maybe sharing privately is the way to go. That's why the option is there. Someone who's downloading from you may not be sharing anything at the moment, but they're actually interested in something you're interested in as well! Isn't that enough of a reason to want to share?

Anyway, it's good to hear an opposing point of view on this matter.

I will remain extremely passionate on defending the excessive banning features/functions such as an IP option. To the point where if it were enabled or even revised in a future version (not that this will happen) just as a "trial run" I would stop using and donating to SLSK without hesitation.

If the user/host in question *IS* publicly sharing but persistently bans/blocks a user (a.k.a. myself) for a reasonable download sum while sharing equally then they deserve to be bypassed with alternative screenames. I've gotten so creative I recruit other buddylist screenames through giving privileges, forwarding selfish username target, identifying files & folders to download in order to speed up the process of obtaining the files I want from these quiet and unreasonable a**holes.

You said it best, Nir:
"My stance on the matter is that if you're really that touchy about who's downloading from you, maybe sharing privately is the way to go."
Damn straight. If you are sharing publicly you have no reason to ban...especially when following the User Info rules. When User Info rules are not present and the ban is implemented it's even worse when you try to politely ask the user "Why?" with either: A) the most common non-response or B) receive a reply in expletives and trash talking for no apparent reason.

Proofreading upon further review my first sentence should have read:

"I will remain extremely passionate on defending *AGAINST* the excessive banning features/functions such as an IP option."

Well clearly you've never run into spammers who change their names 15 times a day and spam links to nonsense in the rooms your regularly park yourself.

I'm all for the banning of IP's.

Might you be thinking about IP ignoring? I'm not generally opposed to that.

It seems banning IPs would be a good feature to have in rooms; but for sharing files, banning by username is sufficient. Some of us never even use the rooms, and only use Soulseek for filesharing. I HATE blatant spammers and think they should be fined or thrown in jail. But spammers aren't an issue on Soulseek for those of us who just share files.

In Phex, client of the Gnutella network, was implemented the following possibilities:
Right-click on the name of the user, and choose from the following options. 1) Ban for this session 2) Ban for a week 3) Ban forever.
If we want, we can exclude the third option ....
:)

Snarky's picture

This is obviously a hot potato subject. I have seen and read much of the pro-ban lobby in this and other peer-2-peer forums, I dont think I have ever read some strong anti-banning offerings as I do here.
My feeling for what it's worth is that some control is neccessary if you are going to openly share all your collection, there are too many out there that forget the rules, expect to be able to grab (intentionally) whole folders and spoil it for the more reasonable user, these abusers need control, but I am not going to sit here watching everything going on, just to prevent leeching or excessive downloading, I do it simply by giving everyone a chance, if they have something useful they go in my user list, if they have no shares at all, then I take it that they either do not have anything to share, or have screwed up their sharing, just booted up etc, allow one track, then message them, no reply, then they are simply banned, to await their comment. A reply with a good reason, like At work cant share on the company PC, then I might let them have an album, but point out to them the whole purpose of Soulseek is to share BOTH ways. Other than that, I usually run List only, but will always add anyone I download from to my list. That way I feel free from the irksome leeches, and get few problems from the far east CD makers looking for stock. !!

I'd like to see an option to ignore IPs.

This can get DANGEROUS.

As IPs can be shared as well, it can mean that if you ban a certain IP, you might ban 50-ish innocent folks in the process. You think I'm kidding? NO! This was an issue multiple times on Wikipedia, when innocent people got banned because ONE vandalist's IP was banned. However, this IP belonged to a whole cluster of machines in a 5-mile district!
So you'd better be careful out there...

To another topic: (@tr0ndisc)
"To combat these unreasonable a**holes I fully support the log-out-relog-back-in-as-a-different username to complete the single file/small folder for which I was ridiculously banned without any explanation(s)."

OHH YES. Some often ban you "just because" you do not have the kind of style on-line that *they* want. So if do not have the lucky chance to have something that the user wants, you get locked out by a band. Great dudes.
But you can detect them easily: most can't spell English properly, commonly writing "lyk" this:

" sry m8 but ur files make no sence to me thats teh point. i baned u bcuz ur stuf is purty shite. so if u fink u got too dl from me then share smin from my style i want ffs "

THAT is what Google Translate should finally implement! Fu*kwit<->English translation! :P

Banning is definately overused, and having silly rules like not being allowed to queue more than 100MB or more than 2 songs is just plain ridiculous. If there were a proper system in place it wouldn't be so bad, but if you happen to queue 1 album that happens to be over 100MB you're banned oO

What might be nicer and might appeal to those with such silly rules, is having an option to stall uploads when there are others that want to download as well. That way the downloaders still get their files, and the uploaders share with more than just one user. This is assuming that this is the reasons those silly rules are in place, and not because they just want to be asshats. If you don't want your files to be downloaded, don't share them publicly, use some common sense (sadly that happens way too often, certainly on the Internet...).

On a sidenote, dynamic IP's will circumvent IP bans anyway, and I don't know if TOR is allowed here, but that's one other easy way to go around it, it's not really the greatest idea no matter how I look at it.

Another option could be to have an option to limit the speed of the "offenders" of such rule, while having non-offenders have the majority of your (allowed) bandwidth.

At the above post: crap English is sadly all too common on the Internet as well. It's not like you have a limited amount of characters to type with or that messages are limited in characters (up to a point) that one has to type like that. Very annoying to read, mostly on forums though, I don't mind as much on IM or IM-like things. (Especially using "u" instead of "you" and "2" instead of "too" and so on annoy the crap out of me, IM or otherwise.)

no this would no be usefull soulseek is for sharing not for leeching

That sounds good in theory but I am afraid some users would abuse this feature.

Ban by IP = No, that's just insane. Sometimes leechers could become good shaerers.

However option to IPignore is extremely needed. Often times people spam chatrooms with links, quotes, etc. Not to mention same users spamming your inbox promoting stuff of theirs on different names daily. I don't want to click yes or no to allow people all the time and I don't want to turn off private messages off in general. So please impliment ip ignore.

I am all for the selective banning options (ban for session, ban for week, etc) but not permanently. I have tried messaging users to get them to share, People just message back saying "F you!!" and stuff like that, and still don't share.. But i do believe having the ability to ban leechers and a**holes temporarily would go a long way to resolving these leeching/spamming issues. For instance, I had some downloads waiting for the last 3 days.. I checked this morning and a bunch are now listed as "Banned", I sent the guy a message asking why he banned me from downloading and he basically said "F you"... That comeback apparently never gets old... But since he's not sharing with me, i'd like to ban him, because he's currently uploading about 7 albums from me, while banning me from downloading from him... So please, include a ban ability to some extent. And to force people to share, can't you make download speeds correlational to the amount of files ppl share?.. So if they are sharing a few junk files, they can't actually download ANYTHING from ANYONE until they add over 100 song files to their shared folder. And then scale it from there.. The more files shared, the faster you can download. for example, 1000 shared files = 5 kb/s. 5000 shared files = 20 kb/s. 10000 shared files = 100 kb/s.. and so on... And most ppl who don't share simply have no clue how to use the program, so a tutorial upon first launch showing people how to set up their shared folder would possibly help too. Just my 2 cents...

JoeCool01's picture

Agree entirely. I don't get too precious about what other people want to share, and I don't worry too much about the file organisation of user libraries (even though some are impossible to search). However, I don't think that its too much to expect that all users accept that sharing their files is a mandatory condition for participation - this is a file-sharing facility after all. I freely admit to exercising my right to ban anybody that fails to share and will continue to do so with those who have clearly no intention of entering into the right spirit.