Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?
An command at X that can enable / disable the takeovers a
I would like to take capsunel ideea further more ( sorry for my bad english ) : what if the channel manager could set a minimum access level for the /msg x ban <chan> *!*@* command .that way , only trusted people ( if the minimum its set on 499 ) or him ( the 500 ) could ever use it .
Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?
Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?
bogzillaq wrote:I would like to take capsunel ideea further more ( sorry for my bad english ) : what if the channel manager could set a minimum access level for the /msg x ban <chan> *!*@* command .that way , only trusted people ( if the minimum its set on 499 ) or him ( the 500 ) could ever use it .
Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?
he can still use /msg x ban <#ch> *!*@*.* or /msg x kick <#ch> *!*@* or other combinations. and even if there was a command to protect against massban commands, takers can still mass ban and create havoc manually just with ops and without the use of x. my solution was to add a flag to restrict the use of X adduser command only to the manager, because the real problem is if someone with access 400+ starts to add usernames to the channel and create multiple takeovers. and after that, the manager has to erase the usernames one by one because there isn't a command available to clear all the access list.
Keops wrote: ..., because the real problem is if someone with access 400+ starts to add usernames to the channel and create multiple takeovers. and after that, the manager has to erase the usernames one by one because there isn't a command available to clear all the access list.
The following was mentioned so many time in this forum:
ZeroSlashe® wrote:..., as it has been said before so many many many many many times, when you @ someone, it has to be a trusted person!
Who named that 400? Any level has to be earned, especially administrator level. The day channel owners will stop giving out administrator level as lollypops, this problem will disappear.
gemeau50 wrote:Who named that 400? Any level has to be earned, especially administrator level. The day channel owners will stop giving out administrator level as lollypops, this problem will disappear.
even if he's a trusted user, it doesn't mean he can't turn against you some day and decide to create chaos in your channel. i think the adduser restriction flag would be a good improvement.
Keops wrote:even if he's a trusted user, it doesn't mean he can't turn against you some day and decide to create chaos in your channel. i think the adduser restriction flag would be a good improvement.
Anybody could turn against a channel owner, even a 499. How long does it take an owner to remove that user access? ... That user will make his show only ounce.
-
ZeroSlashe®
- Posts: 238
- Location: Netherlands
ok so why not make a whole new thread about "Clearing Access List With A Single Command, Which can only be used by owner!"
Just like gemeau50 said. People should stop giving away high access levels like candy!
If people would just use their common sence, they don't have to nag about a thing.
Just like gemeau50 said. People should stop giving away high access levels like candy!
If people would just use their common sence, they don't have to nag about a thing.
[img]http://members.chello.nl/zeroslasher/twat.jpg[/img]
Mikto lamers are too much every were, and if any got a problem direclty he type /msg x ban #chan *!*@*, and channel wil be mass baned.
So why u don't make that X ban max 10 users in 1 minute from the same user.cause if a channel have about 200 300, and the founder have been working yearss to make his channel great, and sudenly some came and mass ban , thats really ugly.
Sure founder and mangers should be well in chosing their ops, but some user are lamers.
So plz take that subject in seriuos.
So why u don't make that X ban max 10 users in 1 minute from the same user.cause if a channel have about 200 300, and the founder have been working yearss to make his channel great, and sudenly some came and mass ban , thats really ugly.
Sure founder and mangers should be well in chosing their ops, but some user are lamers.
So plz take that subject in seriuos.
Sunger wrote:So why u don't make that X ban max 10 users in 1 minute ...
Useless! since limiting the number of bans or kicks would create the opposite problem. Our floatmargin is set to 8 users per 30 seconds. But, under massive attacks, they can get in at least 15 users simultaneously. Why? ... Lag, X reaction time, ... ; who knows? Or, what would you do if they come in -quietly-, gathering a certain amount of users in the channel before starting an attack? You wouldn't be able to defend yourself.
Then - what's left? Administrators and channel masters must exercise caution in giving out access to the right people. Unfortunately, you will always get that lamer here and there, there is nothing you can do about it.