Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
(Please acknowledge this post)
I endorse this idea , and would like to enlarge its scope with three
observations ,
though :
1- the creation of another list (the mentioned Ignore List) is a perhaps
unnecessary
increase in the PB overall logic : the solicited result could be achieved with
the
existing Permanent Block List , if it could be created for each line one
"No-Alert"
flag (to suppress icon-blinking) , which would be disabled by default.
This suggestion makes the result broader than the original proposal , as it
permits
the inclusion of other IPs (non HTTP) in the No-Alert behavior (when the
"Notify On"
option is set to "All-Blocks") .
2- if however my suggestion above would not be accepted , then please :
do not use the "Ignore IP" expression , as in all softwares it implies in
dismissing
the object , in this case to *not* consider or disregard that HTTP IP for
blocking ,
when in fact what is wanted is just to suppress the icon blinking (and possibly
the
yellow color).
Consider so to replace the "Ignore IP" expression by "No-Alert" or similar .
3- an independent item for PB settings :
the "Notify On" option should be renamed "Alert On" .
Original comment by JRF...@gmail.com
on 30 Oct 2009 at 9:04
Thanks for the additional discussion.
1: Sounds like it could be a reasonable implementation of this idea, will need
to
think about it some more to make sure it's as least-confusing as possible
though.
2 & 3: I agree, we need to be careful how we word things. I do prefer the
"Notify"
term versus "Alert", because it is more general in nature - and we can expand
upon
this terminology to refer to additional notification types as well, in the
future.
When we're talking about this feature, instead of "Ignore IP" (which I like just
because of its brevity) maybe we could go with "Disable Notifications for this
IP",
or "Disable Notify", or something.
Original comment by peerbloc...@gmail.com
on 30 Oct 2009 at 1:52
This suggestion was also made in a post on our forums:
http://forums.peerblock.com/read.php?5,6065
Original comment by peerbloc...@gmail.com
on 5 Apr 2010 at 4:13
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
peerbloc...@gmail.com
on 28 Oct 2009 at 3:19