MAX LOGINS ENABLED/DISABLED.

Ask questions about Undernet's Channel Service
Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

so, does this mean we can log two clones to the same username (one with 500 and the other with 399) ? can another person log to my user while i'm logged with 399 if he knows my password?

User avatar
Crosswing
Posts: 69

Post by Crosswing »

Yes, you can log in two connections with the same username (if you own a channel, one will have 500 and the other 399).

Keops wrote:can another person log to my user while i'm logged with 399 if he knows my password?

No, that will be username sharing, the main reason for which maxlogins was set to 1 for everyone. And if users will start sharing their usernames again, I'm pretty sure this will be disabled once again (if it will ever be implemented).
Dead account, don't bother contacting.
[img]http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1350/cservicetrainee6mw.png[/img]

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

Well, I hope it will be implemented.
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

User avatar
YounGun
Posts: 164
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by YounGun »

Heya :)

It's been both fun and interesting reading this topic. Fun, because Outsider has posted in it in his authentic style of dissing cservice and NOT being informed of certain policies (only one person can alter maxlogins).

Interesting because Eenie made some valid points and started a discussion on a topic that needed to be discussed.

Yes, I can live with 399 untill my ghost dies.
[img]http://wiki.castlecops.com/images/f/f6/MVPLogo1w.gif[/img]

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

Dear god ... max logins was disabled for a certain reason, and keep it that way ! I'm just sick and tired of seeing botnets, usernames suspended(just because an asshole logged in the same internet cafe` many botnets) and so on ... just leave that way, don't forget !: "He became so powerful , the only think he was afraid was ... losing his power, which eventualy he did." So we are = users , we will all have 1 thats perfect, I will have 4 because I'm the special one :P
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
[img]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4327/undernetuser0jm.png[/img]

User avatar
Crosswing
Posts: 69

Post by Crosswing »

Dooku wrote:Dear god ... max logins was disabled for a certain reason, and keep it that way ! I'm just sick and tired of seeing botnets, usernames suspended(just because an asshole logged in the same internet cafe` many botnets) and so on


Now instead of bots loged in with same username, each bot has its own username(s). Disabling maxlogins didn't actually stop that much.
Last edited by Crosswing on Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dead account, don't bother contacting.
[img]http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1350/cservicetrainee6mw.png[/img]

User avatar
lemuel
Posts: 408
Location: Southeast Asia, Philippines

Post by lemuel »

Long discussion about this topic. Oh yeah right, for now maxlogin is not enabled so, everyone must stick to it. Secondly, there's no bad thing if maxlogin is enabled or disabled. The fact is that it was disabled due to abused.
I love Maria Katrina Rey

Eenie
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Eenie »

lemuel stated
Secondly, there's no bad thing if maxlogin is enabled or disabled.


Try to read the whole thread before posting! I have very clearly stated the "bad thing" encountered by having maxlogins disabled.

lemuel also stated
The fact is that it was disabled due to abused.


Others have shown how this has led to more abuse.

lemuel, please try to read and follow the intent of the thread before you post. And try to have something relevant to add if you feel you must post a reply. Otherwise, you are just derailing.

Eenie
Just a small fish in a big sea [img]http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo242/Brandi-Monkey/Animation2tiny.gif[/img]
[img]http://home.comcast.net/%7Eeenie/sig2.png[/img]

User avatar
dutu
Posts: 12

Post by dutu »

Crosswing said this:

Now insted of bots loged in with same username, each bot has its own username(s).


This is more than the truth. the number of the usernames started to grow up fast since maxlogins was disabled, making cservice admins job harder to track on them. and when I say harder I mean most of the time they are not suspended. now setting it back to on or as u above suggested will do so the things can calm down and the number of usernames will not grow up fast and cservice admins might do the job easyer tracking them.

i totally agree to turn the feature on as u suggested

ck
Posts: 10

Post by ck »

that manangers sharing usernames.. that one channel got 2 "owners"
or one user got "2 channels" who cares about that? look at #skype as an example.. i've heard about cservice admins who got 500 on more than one channel.. and even more than 2.. and so on... i do know about the old rule that you can have one help channel and one chat channel with X.. but i belive that is also "disablet"
why should only opers and cs admins have maxlogins 2?
i repeat myself.. "Quakenet got maxlogins 2, no problem there.."
i have never ever seen any abuse with the maxlogins on Quakenet.
i don't know why Undernet make things harder than it is... not only the maxlogins.. pretty much everything..
i belive Undernet is the best network ever.. but i'm starting to doubt on it.
Happiness comes in packages marked 'Batteries Not Included'

User avatar
lemuel
Posts: 408
Location: Southeast Asia, Philippines

Post by lemuel »

Eenie wrote:lemuel, please try to read and follow the intent of the thread before you post. And try to have something relevant to add if you feel you must post a reply. Otherwise, you are just derailing.

Others have shown how this has led to more abuse.
Eenie


Well, I'm just concerned of what's running on the network this time. And yeah you have clearly stated the "bad thing" about maxlogin. And that part I said that the fact is that it was disabled due to abuse, I doubt if I'm wrong about this - I'm focussing the general reason about maxlogin (which is disabled due to abuse).

Thanks for the correction. Bring back the topic.
I love Maria Katrina Rey

MartYanu2
Posts: 39
Location: The land of nowhere

Post by MartYanu2 »

ck wrote:i repeat myself.. "Quakenet got maxlogins 2, no problem there.."
i have never ever seen any abuse with the maxlogins on Quakenet.


I was an oper on the Quakenet network, there the opers own drones, ddoses users, and more than that, Quakenet is the most lame network I ever seen, as the opers/admins abuses there, the normal users much more. If you do not know what you are talking about, mind your own business.

User avatar
dutu
Posts: 12

Post by dutu »

this is not quakenet's forum and the last posts are out of the topic so why dont u keep the comments for u and let the others who're really interested on the topic, to read and post their thoughts about it. we really dont care about the abuse which is done on quakenet or any other thing about any other irc network besides undernet, we care about maxlogins which I think should be back in use. as I posted above making maxlogins available again will strongly discount the username registrations by one person and let the cservice administrators do a more easyer job. Now if you look carefully in most of the registered chans managers or administrators use to register usernames for protection bots. Enabling maxlogins will let them login as managers and the protections bots as a channel op with 399 access as u said in the above posts. I am sure this will prevent mass username registration which has started to grow up very quickly in the last years. this topic very interesting I think everyone should say his opinion about its main

now ck.. there is NO rule saying u can have 2 chans registered on ur username, 1 help chan and another one as u want to. in the channel service registration aup is this line which is: "The Channel Service Committee will only register 1 channel per USER (this means user, not account or e-mail address)." next I agree with u that other ppls have 2 or more registered chans on their usernames but let me tell u something,they do it to help u and others who are in need. they do it to make undernet a better place. and they dont use their accesses just to invite friends in those chans, every such chan has its own activity most of them for helping users in need. other chans are owned by ircops, and yes they provide u an undernet server so u as a friendly user can conenct and do what u do every time u connect to undernet. they work hard to keep the servers up and running just for u, and they surely need special chans like those...

User avatar
Etherfast
Posts: 276
Location: Bucharest

Post by Etherfast »

Indeed, this is not Quakenet, we will talk about Undernet only.
Second, *some* CService admins have multiple usernames/channels because they can be trusted, they're not abusive persons put in that position, and for some other officials, their job requires owning more than a username for testing purposes.

CService owns the Channel Service part of this network, and it's not up to you guys to comment or judge our decisions related to our rules and policies. You have an AUP to respect, just do it. If not, just don't use a username and you can own 30 unregistered channels if you wish.

Stay on topic when discussing the maxlogins thingie.
I still like the 399 second login, or the ghostkill command.
Etherfast

Eenie
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Eenie »

Etherfast said:
Indeed, this is not Quakenet, we will talk about Undernet only.


I think the reason Quakenet was brought into this thread was to show that an IRC network can function fine while granting multiple maxlogins to all their users, a legitimate point to bring up.

Etherfast also said:
Second, *some* CService admins have multiple usernames/channels because they can be trusted, they're not abusive persons put in that position, and for some other officials, their job requires owning more than a username for testing purposes.


My request is to allow multiple maxlogins for ALL users, not just a select few. And it has been demonstarted that not just "*some* CService admins have multiple usernames" as stated above. Many other users who have "connections" with those who can grant multiple maxlogins have them.

To continue, Etherfast also stated:
CService owns the Channel Service part of this network, and it's not up to you guys to comment or judge our decisions related to our rules and policies.


On the contrary, I believe a network should be open to the suggestions of its users and open to ways of bettering itself. It is our right and our duty to comment and try to help the network when we think we have valid suggestions to help improve it. That is one of the reasons for having this forum.

I very much hope a change will be made to enable all users to have maxlogins set at 2 or a ghostkill command in order to reduce the abuse on Undernet and allow users to function better on Undernet.

Eenie
Just a small fish in a big sea [img]http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo242/Brandi-Monkey/Animation2tiny.gif[/img]
[img]http://home.comcast.net/%7Eeenie/sig2.png[/img]