It is currently Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




 Page 5 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:22 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard
also a little reminder why maxlogin feature has been disable from UnderNet, it's one of the reason(s) why it has been disabled.

Quote:
Flooders have been heavily exploiting it in conjunction with +x using it to evade bans and flood channels, since they could use the same login for 3 hosts.
Floodbots are also starting to take advantage of maxlogins and +x for the same purposes as flooders.
More than 1 login encourages cloning, which is against Undernet user policy. Since users are allowed to login more than one client, they would be encouraged to connect to undernet more than once. Then again, doesn't this encourage registering more accounts instead?



_________________
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:39 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:30 am
Posts: 20
Location: Bucharest, Romania
heh, I don't think he wrotte that twice.
It must be a bug or something (1st page of this thread looks like the 4th page).

Related to this topic:
I agree with re-enabling the use of maxlogins setting for all users.
I don't think ghost-kill is strictly needed. Many are getting this in discussion as an excuse for requesting maxlogins.



_________________
Regards,
Mervin
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:22 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard
personally im not agree with reimplementing maxlogin feature, most of the users are sharing their usernames with their friends and so on, even till these days they're still sharing their usernames even if they has one or more. also you would need to think about it, if maxlogin would be reimplemented again it would be hell again as it was used to do when maxlogin feature was available on UnderNet. i would agree if the coders will sort out the problem or they will treat this matter in another way, like trying to avoid or to prevent the abuse coming from regular users who has maxlogin on their usernames. anyways i don't know if my oppinion does it matters or not but im expressing myself regarding this.



_________________
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:19 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Romania\Cluj-Napoca
Shut up ma , re-enable maxlogins ! I need that thing :bandit:



_________________
With respect, Sebastian
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:07 pm 

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:55 pm
Posts: 8
Maybe logging in twice could be restricted to folks connecting from the same user@host as the ghost. It's a way to avoid some abuse. user@*.host maybe, since most of the users have dynamic IP.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:36 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Netherlands
Sebi wrote:
Shut up ma , re-enable maxlogins ! I need that thing :bandit:


offtopic:
Eh... no one has to shut up alright? else we start with you.

on topic:

I like this host security idea what Z-26 said. It might be better to implent something like this?



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:05 pm 
#Userguide Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:19 pm
Posts: 39
Location: The land of nowhere
I think you do NOT read carefully the posts. And if someone does NOT have dynamic ip address? and it has a static one?

That is not fair for the users with the static ip addresses.

Think about it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:19 am 

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:55 pm
Posts: 8
Hmm I didnt follow your line of thought, sorry. If a person has a static IP, having user@*.host doesnt affect them at all, right?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: We need answers
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:27 am 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
This topic was locked by one of the moderators. I reopened it to make this plea. I am locking it back in respect to the moderator's decision. Not that I agree it should be locked.

I am disturbed that this topic was locked rather than trying to keep people on topic. And I do not believe the topic has been "discussed out" yet.

I asked in an earlier post:
Quote:
So what can we do to get this implemented?


No one answered this. I still want to know what we, as users of Undernet can do to get this implemented. The resounding opinion posted here is that people really would like to have this.

So, what is the procedure we should take? To whom do we take our plea? What is the process for changing this? Please let us know what we can do, and teach us about CService and how it works. We care about making positive changes for Undernet.

I am locking this back as the moderator did, hoping he will unlock it so we can get answers to my questions and continue making positive suggestions concerning this topic. I sincerely would hate to see this topic die another untimely death.

Eenie
:cry:


Last edited by Eenie on Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.


_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:55 am
Posts: 186
Location: Panamá, Panamá City
I WANT MAXLOGINS 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just that... thanks



_________________
...jonathan gabriel... a.k.a. Truenos
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:18 am 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
I just found this topic mysteriously unlocked and some posts missing.

For any further discussion on this topic, please see: http://forum.undernet.org/viewtopic.php?t=2764

Eenie



_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:05 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
The missing posts were mine, and I unlocked it. I originally locked it because the subject was getting offtopic, and became more of a "WE WANT IT NOW" squeal than a discussion (which I hate to say is exactly what your other thread is, hence why I'm not choosing to respond to that thread).

I already stated it would take some time, and I wasn't refering to days/weeks.


Last edited by xplora on Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.


_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:11 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Regarding that other thread it should be noted:

The coders and CService do NOT want to a logout option, period
The Server Admins do NOT want a Channel Services (specifically X) to be able to kill anything, that rules out ghost kill options, sorry

So far the only constructive idea was to limit second and subsequent logins to Max level 399 access within X until the oldest login disconnects. This I am trying to get implemented, but it will take time.



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:19 am 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
xplora stated:
Quote:
I already stated it would take some time, and I wasn't refering to days/weeks.


It seems that post is one that got deleted.

You never gave us a timeframe, and my questions about how we as users could help make changes we think would benefit Undernet were never answered.

Instead, the topic was locked. In all due respect, I waited almost a month after this was locked to reopen this issue because it is important to many Undernet users and we did not want this to be swept under the rug as an old issue, never to be brought to light again.

xplora also stated:
Quote:
The missing posts were mine, and I unlocked it. I originally locked it because the subject was getting offtopic, and became more of a "WE WANT IT NOW" squeal than a discussion (which I hate to say is exactly what your other thread is, hence why I'm not choosing to respond to that thread).


The purpose of that "other thread" is to continue this one which had been locked for quite some time and to see just how many Undernet users care enough to sign a petition stating their strong opinion about improving Undernet in this way. I like to think the "powers that be" would want to know just how many people support this measure. Maybe it is just me, but I think they should care about the users. It is not meant to be a vehicle for "squealing."

Please, since a new topic has been created, keep this one locked, lest we derail again.

The new topic that covers this one has been opened at http://forum.undernet.org/viewtopic.php?t=2764 for any further discussion.

Thanks.
Eenie



_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:05 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Eenie wrote:
... how we as users could help make changes we think would benefit Undernet were never answered.


see coder-com, they can always use more coders.

http://coder-com.undernet.org/
http://gnuworld.undernet.org/



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: