Increase Maxbans in channels..

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.
gemeau50
Posts: 76
Location: Trois-Rivières, Canada

Post by gemeau50 »

OUTsider wrote:So my suggestion is to copy all bans into X as soon as possible and keep the banlist active in the channel as low as possible. Do not use so called sticky bans like eggdrop does if they are not neccessary.

Appearance is paramount. The least interventions you do, the better your channel looks. While sticky bans achieve that purpose, X only participates in polluting the channel with bans and kicks messages. Users get p... off in seeing these messages. I visited several channels having a large user base, and I haven’t seen one having a banlist exceeding 45 bans. I’m not saying that there are none but I haven’t seen any. Keeping X banlist up to date is a massive undertaking compared to an eggdrop banlist. Bans don’t vanish after 14 days within an eggdrop. Also, X doesn’t make the difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one. To X, they are all permanents. The channel banlist has to be cleaned by an operator made of flesh. If Undernet is ready to allow 300 bans through X, what is the problem in increasing the amount of bans in the regular banlist? Like I said before, appearance is paramount. While Undernet gives the impression of doing something to help us fight spammers, flooders ..., channel administrators aren’t using it.

yanik
Posts: 3
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by yanik »

gemeau50 wrote:
OUTsider wrote:So my suggestion is to copy all bans into X as soon as possible and keep the banlist active in the channel as low as possible. Do not use so called sticky bans like eggdrop does if they are not neccessary.

Appearance is paramount. The least interventions you do, the better your channel looks. While sticky bans achieve that purpose, X only participates in polluting the channel with bans and kicks messages. Users get p... off in seeing these messages. I visited several channels having a large user base, and I haven’t seen one having a banlist exceeding 45 bans. I’m not saying that there are none but I haven’t seen any. Keeping X banlist up to date is a massive undertaking compared to an eggdrop banlist. Bans don’t vanish after 14 days within an eggdrop. Also, X doesn’t make the difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one. To X, they are all permanents. The channel banlist has to be cleaned by an operator made of flesh. If Undernet is ready to allow 300 bans through X, what is the problem in increasing the amount of bans in the regular banlist? Like I said before, appearance is paramount. While Undernet gives the impression of doing something to help us fight spammers, flooders ..., channel administrators aren’t using it.


We were having alot of problems with the server 45 maxbans limit, after doing some research and finding this forum, i had the idea to modify our protection eggdrop to make it ban by X instead of using +b mode. Surprisly, we saw the banlist reach 300 bans!

The good news is, it looks like the X ban limit is not 300!

The eggdrop now counts 695 bans in the chan at the moment im writing this post.

14:47] <(MTL> * [692] *!*@modemcable087.85-70-69.mc.videotron.ca (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 07:51)
[14:47] <(MTL> * [693] *!*@mtl-hse-ppp182103.qc.sympatico.ca (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 06:10)
[14:47] <(MTL> * [694] *!*@toronto-hse-ppp4284084.sympatico.ca (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 04:27)
[14:47] <(MTL> * [695] *!*@modemcable017.238-82-70.mc.videotron.ca (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 00:22)


Wicked heh? If you dont beleive just double click in #montreal and try to count the bans :P

The channel userlist passed from 300-600 permanent users to 200-350, sometimes goes over 400. That means we had over 33% spam/spy bots!

My advice is to modify your eggdrop tcls, such as sentinel, badwhois, badwords, etc, to ban by X. I already have a few if you need em just ask!

I am also looking for a programmer who could modfiy eggdrop code so we could add banlist in the eggdrop and he would ban by X instead of +b.
Only problem would be if X goes in netsplit or something, but im sure theres a way to fix that.

Thanks to undernet for increasing the banlist!
(hope its not a bug and they will lower it down to 300=)

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

The limit was removed 1 or 2 months ago, after this topic was opened. And yes, the banlist has no limit at the moment.
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

yanik
Posts: 3
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by yanik »

Oh thanks!

I didnt know

Thats awesome :)

yanik
Posts: 3
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by yanik »

Just tought some people would like to know we got over 1000 active bans by X at the moment! :D

[12:45] <(MTL> * [997] *!*@67.71.68.84 (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 16:39)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [998] *!*@218.111.20.40 (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 15:47)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [999] *!*@86.108.11.230 (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 09:25)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1000] *!*@toronto-hse-ppp3688664.sympatico.ca (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 07:48)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1001] *!*@210.214.153.182 (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 05:49)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1002] *!*@68.216.* (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 02:10)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1003] *!*@*.optonline.net (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 01:54)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1004] *!*@220.226.21.136 (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 01:43)
[12:45] <(MTL> * [1005] *!*@*.adelphia.net (X!cservice@undernet.org) (active 01:41)
[12:45] <(MTL> Use '.bans all' to see the total list.

windox
Posts: 9

Post by windox »

yeah! I think it should be increase.
Excessive use of alcohol can lead to a pregnancy

User avatar
Etherfast
Posts: 276
Location: Bucharest

Post by Etherfast »

This is an old post, when the X banlist was unlimited.
Now, the maximum limit is set to 300 bans, and I heard no rumours that it'll be increased soon :P

--19:40:08-- -X- Sorry, The channel banlist is full (300 bans)
Etherfast

windox
Posts: 9

Post by windox »

yeah lol I just notice...hehehe but the threader is talking about unregistered channel...I think ban should be increased
Excessive use of alcohol can lead to a pregnancy

The-Judge
Posts: 47

Post by The-Judge »

If your channel is not registred, register it and you'll be able to add more bans via X :lol:

Riot
Posts: 1

Post by Riot »

I for myself op on a country channel and sometime get flooded with 100 ips in one wave. Whats hard in increasing either X Limit or even the channel ban list? Other networks work with 100.Remember that us ops are the one that maintain the chan clean and most of the time with no help from the network admins : cant we have at least tools to fight spams/flood and other malecious attacks.And i hate setting domain ban so its not really a sloution.

More power to Devoted ops!

BlasterQ
Posts: 9

Post by BlasterQ »

bring back the unlimited X banlist, please.
our channel is being attacked by a hundred ips everyday.

gemeau50
Posts: 76
Location: Trois-Rivières, Canada

Post by gemeau50 »

Riot wrote:I for myself op on a country channel and sometime get flooded with 100 ips in one wave.

We had the same problem at one time. We solved that problem by enabling floatlim 8/per 30 seconds.

Riot wrote:Whats hard in increasing either X Limit or even the channel ban list? Other networks work with 100.

Undernet is different. While I can understand why nickserv is not applicable to this network, I still can't understand why a 100 bans limit is not feasable. I believe that Undernet put so much work in trying to make us buy the benefits of X banlimit that we will never see that 100 bans limit that some networks are benefiting.

Riot wrote:And i hate setting domain ban so its not really a sloution.

While I respect your decision for not making global bans, such bans reveal themselve useful for countries where the only thing you get is flooders and spammers.

Xaifas
Posts: 99
Location: Timisoara, Romania (EU)

Post by Xaifas »

There is one thing that bodered me. MAXBANs = 45
Once i had problems with some flooders in a big channel 400+ users. There were bots that did a fast join and very fast part with bogus msg at part.
Each IP from bots was doing this every 40-60 mins, but not all at once...
We banned all IP's and even so, X didnt managed to kick them before they parted. Even done about 15 scripts and a .exe bot with different methods to solve the problem still they managed to join/part ...
The only method was to ban them using mode ... but the banlist was allready almost full and we couldnt had added hundreds of ips ....
problem was solved with mass-gline but we had to coup with the flood for weeks....
some of you will tell me "why didnt u used +Dm", well the manager of the chan didnt wanted to :roll:

So i would like to see the MAXBANS raised..... :cry:
[url=irc://eu.undernet.org/uus][img]http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1828/signaturejn6.gif[/img][/url]

Revival
Posts: 250
Location: Istanbul/Turkiye

Post by Revival »

adrenalin wrote:In some topic Homer wrote..

Homer wrote:X banlist can go up to 300bans, X will force the maxbans and if i`m not wrong also you`ll be able to set those 45 bans by regular users (maximun 345)


I think this is great idea! To make X bans do not counted(for MAXBANS)!
So, for example, if X even set 50 active bans on the channel.. Regular ops can still set 45 bans(direct..not through X)!


The channel ban list (supporting by server)restricted for 45 manual bans but you will be able to set 300 ban more through X Incase X will enforce the banlist to keep 300 more on the channel banlist (Not X's banlist) (So totally 345 ban you will be able to put) but reverse: If there's 45 ban already set through X and these bans shown on the channel ban list (Not X's banlist) then you will not be able to ban one more person\bot\drone manualy, but through X you will.

Consequently: Use a eggdrop with a blacklist to prevent joins of drone\bots or A script like that. Drones will not considers to join-back after got kicked\banned so use manual bans on these stuff. I don't think if a 345 ban limit is not enough for a biggest channel on this earth named Undernet. But hey, alternatives are not limited depends on you have the ability or the qualities that are necessary to do it.

Best regards/RevivaL
[img]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4200/revitp8.jpg[/img]

Xaifas
Posts: 99
Location: Timisoara, Romania (EU)

Post by Xaifas »

dude ive banned all IPS of the botnet thru X STILL X couldnt do a crap about the "zombies" ... X only managed to kick 1 out of 5 zombie before they part with bogus msg.... Even if X can hold 300 bans that didnt helped a bit ... the flooder still managed to do whatever he wants .... at first i tought it was this script kiddie wana be hacker... but he had hundreds of zombies .....

And not even scripts were fast enough to kick em before they part.... added all ips in hash even so it managed to kick 1 out of 3, tried with regex same thing, and a friend of mine coded an .exe to see if he manages to make a faster script.. ussless ......
[url=irc://eu.undernet.org/uus][img]http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1828/signaturejn6.gif[/img][/url]