No *!*@*.* ban...

Ask your questions about ircu and GNUWorld, share your ideas, and help the coders in their work.
User avatar
Thrust
Posts: 7
Location: Romania

No *!*@*.* ban...

Post by Thrust »

Hello
I suggest you to remove the /msg X ban #channel *!*@*.* and if possible that command to be used only by the channel manager... that will be a good situation to stop takeovers in registered channels... ohhh, that just my opinion! :roll:
Have a good day!
::[ HoUsE RuLeZzZ ]::

User avatar
Kermit-
Posts: 16
Location: .be

Post by Kermit- »

Take overs in registreted channels is almost impossible.
X will deop ppl who are not having an access automaticly.

At least that's what they always teached me. :)

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

sorry to disappoint you, but many ppl are stupid and simply add ppl with high access, and most of the times those ppl abuse that to issue *!*@* bans/kicks locking down the channel.

However, this topic has been discussed amongst coders very often and it is hard to prevent. The issue is also that X will remove all matching bans when someone removes it, thus also removing all other bans in the banlist.

This makes *!*@* bans very pesky, even if *!*@* is strictly excempted from being used, someone could still use a massive amount of bans like *!*@*.com, *!*@*.net etc. or *!*@1*

User avatar
evi|one
Posts: 211
Location: Netherlands

Post by evi|one »

A ban on *!*@* can be useful sometimes. Channels like #liveevents, #opschool, #class, etc. use that ban to prevent people from changing their nick.
I am a signature virus. Copy me into your signature to help me spread.

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

In that case the ban is set by the operator himself, because if you would set such a ban through X, X would enforce this ban and thus kicking everyone out of the channel.

gemeau50
Posts: 76
Location: Trois-Rivières, Canada

Post by gemeau50 »

Unless the founder's password has been stolen or he gave it away, I can't think of a true takeover in a channel where X is present.

But what about 2 additions to X in order the help a founder to regain control of his channel.

A parameter which would instruct X to only listen to a founder commands.
Parameter similar to strictop which could read founderonly.

A command executable from outside the channel for deopping all operators in the said channel. No needs to clear the channel again with *@*

Or a command doing both at the same time.

gemeau50

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

Interesting idea...i many times thought in something similar to this...a command that will allow only the manager to "act" on the channel, when the feature is ON !
Dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go; be what you want to be because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want in life.

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

gemeau50 wrote:A parameter which would instruct X to only listen to a founder commands.

Simply don't add other users to X, and they can't issue commands...

gemeau50 wrote:A command executable from outside the channel for deopping all operators in the said channel. No needs to clear the channel again with *@*

/msg X clearmode <channel>

gemeau50
Posts: 76
Location: Trois-Rivières, Canada

Post by gemeau50 »

Simply don't add other users to X, and they can't issue commands...

Obviously you're right .... If I don't get up in the morning, I won't fall down during the day.



/msg X clearmode <channel>

From X help message:
Clears all channel modes. Can be used when your channel has been locked up (set +i or +k without your knowledge).
NOTE: This is not necessarily the best method to gain entry to your channel, because other people or bots may be opped in the channel that may reset the modes as you clear them.


If you have nothing useful to add, why did you replied?

gemeau50

]Ptk[
Posts: 3

Post by ]Ptk[ »

Je suis d'accord avec la personne qui dit que vous devriez enlever la commande /msg X ban #canal *!*@* ....

Il y a beaucoup trop d'abus sur cette commande là. Vous l'avez bien fait pour maxlogin et franchement je voie mal comment on peut abuser de cette commande.

Beaucoup de monde vous suggèrent de l'enlever. Vous devriez écouter un peu les suggestions des usagers en général qui font la gestion des canaux. Ce n'est pas tous les canaux qui sont des canaux extrêmement sérieux comme cservice (trop même). Ce sont pas tous des experts. On est pas toujours aussi strict dans les ajouts d'accès.

Vous, vous aidez les usagers mais avez-vous déjà géré un canal normal? Je ne crois pas. alors les usagers qui gèrent un canal normal sont pas mal plus apte que vous à savoir ce qui est fatiguant de ce qui ne l'est pas. Et la commande /msg X ban #canal *!*@* ...., il y a énormément d'abus.

Vous otez juste les commandes quand ça vous arrange vous, mais quand est-ce écoutez-vous les suggestions des autres usagers qui forment 99% d'Undernet?
_____________________

I am agree with the person who say you should remove /msg X ban #canal *!*@* command.

It have too much abuse with this command. You was do it for maxlogin command and I don't know how we can abuse of this command.

More people suggest you to remove it. You should listen the suggestions of users in general who doing management of channel. They are not always serious channel as cservice. They are not always experts. We are not always strict for adding access.

You, you help users but do you have already manage a normal channel? I don't think. So the users who manage channel are more capable than you to know whats is disturbing of not. And the command /msg X ban #canal *!*@* ..., it have more more abuse.

You juste remove command who arrange you but when you listen suggestions of other users that form 99% of Undernet?

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

Lemme state it once more... YOU CANNOT REMOVE IT. Even if you specificly block *!*@* as mask you can still use multiple banmasks that do the same damage.
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

]Ptk[
Posts: 3

Post by ]Ptk[ »

Vous voulez rien comprendre on dirait. C'est sûr d'autres type de ban comme *!*@*.ca ferait beaucoup de dommage mais ça vidrait pas le canal au moins.

Dans ce cas, puisqu'il est si dûr d'accepter d'enlever le ban *!*@*, une suggestion que je pourrais faire ce serait une protection d'adresse comme j'ai déjà vu sur certains réseaux. Autrement dit, si on essaie de bannir telle adresse mais qu'elle figure dans la liste de protection, il refuse de faire le ban. Ce pourrait être une configuration supplémentaire de canal réservé aux administrateurs.
__________________
You wan't to understand nothing. This is sure that other ban type as *!*@*.ca do more damage but it not clear all the channel.

In this case, since it is so difficult to remove *!*@* ban, another suggestion that i can doing is doing an address protection as i have already in certain network. I.e., if we try to ban address who present in protect list, X refuse to doing the ban. This can be another configuration of the channel reservec by administrators.

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

I don't see the need of removing this posibility of this specific ban (*!*@*), i know it's not always good but sometimes it's used to protect against nick changes...and besides the channel operators of a specific channel can ban someone for any reason...is their channel right ? in case of a takeover...then you have to blame yourself for leting that happen a takeover dosen't happen by it self...this is just my point of view in the ban "*!*@*" case !

Regards,
Dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go; be what you want to be because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want in life.

]Ptk[
Posts: 3

Post by ]Ptk[ »

Même pendant un flood de changement de surnom, bannir *!*@* n'est pas la meilleure solution. Admettons un canal de 200 personnes, tu vas accepter de vider ton canal pour ça? Allons donc!

Il n'y au aucun avantage avec ce type de ban à part faire le trouble. Je vais vous dire, vous avez retiré la commande MaxLogin qui était très utile quand on plantait et franchement, l'avoir oté est vraiment un très mauvaise décision.

Alors, tant qu'à oter une commande qui avait son utilité, otez donc un ban [u]qui ne sert à rien du tout[/u].
_______________
Even while a change nick flood, ban *!*@* is not the best solution. If you are a channel witth 200 users, you are accepted to clear your chan for that? No way!

It have no advantage with this type of ban except doing trouble. I will tell you, you was removed the MaxLogin command who are very usefull when we disconnect et removed it is very a bad decision.

So, since to remove a command very usefull, remove a ban [u]that have no utility[/u].

User avatar
caesar
Posts: 224
Location: Iasi @ .ro Real Location: Behind you! Sexual Orientation: Damn Straight!

Post by caesar »

This is cause and effect. Choose whisly your op's.. don't give higher access to a complete stranger..
Blame not on stupidity what is best explained by ignorance..