OUTsider, /msg X unban #chan Hidden was suppose to remove only the bans matching the nick Hidden (*!*@*) but it didnt.
Coders, There is a bug here. [18:01] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* ban #test-chan *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] [18:01] -X- Added ban *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] to #test-chan at level 75 [18:01] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* ban #test-chan *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] [18:01] -X- Added ban *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] to #test-chan at level 75 [18:01] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* ban #test-chan *!*@* [18:01] *** X sets mode: -b *!*@213.149.174.63 [18:01] *** X sets mode: +b *!*@* (Script/18:01:44) * X Banned: '*!*@*' matching -=(Gunnis Gaia gun-jupe Hidden mad-boy X)=- [18:01] -X- Added ban *!*@* to #test-chan at level 75 [18:01] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* unban #test-chan hidden [18:01] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* lbanlist #test-chan * [18:01] -X- Removed 1 bans that matched [EMAIL PROTECTED] [18:01] -X- *** Ban List for channel #test-chan *** [18:01] -X- No Match! it says clearly: [18:01] -X- Removed 1 bans that matched [EMAIL PROTECTED] it says it removed 1 ban, but where are the *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] and *!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] bans gone ? Thats indeed a bug, and when it'll be fixed, I think the unban issue with *!*@* can be forgotten. That cmd SHOULD remove only bans matching [EMAIL PROTECTED] (*!*@*) and not the 2 others (*!*[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the other) chill Hidden ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Maassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: [Coder-Com] Re: [coder-com] *!*@* ban abusability >>Hidden: > Easy to remove the *!*@* ban OUTsider, > In my case, I could: /msg X unban #chan Hidden > X will then check wich bans are matching me and will remove *!*@* and other > bans matching me if there are any, but X will not remove ALL bans as if you > were doing /msg X unban #chan *!*@* I asked you how to remove the *!*@* ban ONLY with preserving the other present bans. In the current state X is in thats IMPOSSIBLE without also removing the other bans present in the list. Get my point ? And a ban in X on level 20 at *!*@* prevents everyone in the channel to get ops, so they would be forced to remove all X bans to be able to remove the single annoyance. >>TGS: >Second off. a 101+ can easily remove the ban suspend the user and thus a solution to the problem Sorry but suspend/unsuspend requires level 200+ >As for the problem of it being globally abused. If chans are caught doing that they should just have X revoked from the channel. Cservice doesn't care much, you don't either, otherwise you wouldn't put the responsibility of commands usage within a channel on the 400+ users. Cservice is NOT responsible of whats going on in a channel, true, but cservice and the network is associated to provide the enviroment a channel can use and is thus responsible for the options provided through services delivered by cservice to a channel. They decide the options present to a channel and this feature can put quite a load on the network if continuesly abused in this way. >>éL NìçóS >...but I don't get how someone is able to flood a channel where has been put a ban on *!*@*... not if you issue a ban on *!*@*, but if you issue a kick on *!*@*, then X will kick everyone from the channel, since most clients use the autorejoin after kick feature in the clients they will automatically rejoin after the kick, perhaps this makes it more understandable. >>Run: > I use it to clean the ban list. true, but thats regarding unban, if you issue a unban on *!*@* then you will indeed remove all bans present in the channel + all bans present in X's banlist, but do you also need it for BAN/KICK as well ? >>Daave Yes, it is also a channel trust issue, agreed, but yes, you can create floods with it, just read some of the above and you get the picture as well. >>Amarande >1. If a chanop abuses the channel they are opped on this way, by flooding or permitting others to flood the channel in this manner, a 400+ op can and should put an end to this by removing the offender's access. For that a 400+ must be present and active in the channel, and if users start messing I'm sure they make sure they are not present when they do it. >2. If the channel manager fails to take action against this (by either removing the offender's access or having a 400+ do so) then the channel is abusing Cservice and should be dealt with accordingly. It's not the channel manager abusing nor the 400+ users, they indeed gave the user access but did not knew his intention. The abuser makes sure they hardly notice until it's too late. You knew this yourself so no further comment. >>Wensu Thx pal :) >>Kev !@#$!@%#$^@#@#$% !!
