also a little reminder why maxlogin feature has been disable from UnderNet, it's one of the reason(s) why it has been disabled.

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.

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.

Shut up ma , re-enable maxlogins ! I need that thing

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.

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?

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.

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?

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:


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

I WANT MAXLOGINS 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just that... thanks

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

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.

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 stated:

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:

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

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

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