* Alexander Maassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-29 20:45:36 +0200]: > Problem: > *!*@* masks strongly mess up channels when used in kick/ban > > Example: > - Get level 100 in a channel (so you can ban) > - Issue a ban on *!*@* at level 20 > > Result: > Flood away, coz noone can op himself since he is no longer allowed to be op > (*!*@* matches all users and equals NOOP that way with the difference that > every 100+ can do that without needing permission from a 450+)
Seems to me the solution to this problem is a channel trust/suspension issue. Later posts in this thread already address these points so I won't go into it other than to say I agree with them. > Solution: > Finally get rid of *!*@* usage !, its only abused by a lot of users (Greg, > perhaps you want to start logging the *!*@* usage to get some stats > yourself) to create massjoinfloods, disrupt the channel activity and in that > way be able to put load on the servers. *!*@* bans are NOT NEEDED TO BE USED > by clients, perhaps in kick if they want to clean up the idlers, but then I > suggest to limit the usage of kicks on *!*@* to 450, perhaps split the > command apart and make a /msg X kickall <channel> <reason> instead The problem here is not the ability of ops to ban *!*@*, the problem is abusers duping the existing chanops into giving them ops. I imagine there's a lot of other things a 100-level chanop can do to disrupt operations than this particular instance...should they all be removed? How can you create a massjoin-flood with *!*@* banned? I agree, banning the world is pretty disruptive by itself...but again, this isn't a protocol problem, it's a channel administration problem of giving ops to the wrong people. > Another funny issue you haven't thought about is the fact that unban is also > affected by this issue, imagine having like 20 bans on a channel's banlist > in X, someone adding a ban on *!*@*, now do the math and make an estimation > what you need to do to remove this single ban without harming the other bans > in the list. OK, I'm about to show the extent of my (lack of) knowledge of X, but...I assume the issue that you're talking about is that if you issue "/msg x unban *!*@*", then it will not only remove that ban, but also any ban that's a subset of it (which in this case is _all_ of them). If that's the issue, then the correct solution, as far as I can see, is to make the unban command more robust, with a flag that tells X only to remove the ban specifically given, and not any sub-bans. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg01162/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
