Actually, the server can check against all the users on the server and if a ban matches a certain number of users, it can disallow the ban.
Just a suggestion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hidden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > banning *!*@* has some advantages. > > When you ban *!*@* from a channel, only voiced and opped people will be able > to talk, to change their nicks, and no one will be able to join. > > In chans like #class, it's sometimes useful to have that ban enabled. > > Anyway, if someone wishes to lock a chan, he can +sntmilk and kick everyone. > Theres no need to remove the possibility to ban *!*@*. It's up to the > manager to choose his ops. And like Isomer said, it's hard to determine what > is too wide. > > I think we should just forget about making changes on banning *!*@*. > > regards, > > > Hidden > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > > > > I agree.... The ability to ban *!*@* should be either (a) limited to > > cservice staff only, or (b) blocked completely to everyone. > > In my opinion, 9 times out of 10, a *!*@* ban is considered abusive and > > probably used to maliciously lock up the channel. > > I don't really see a need to allow anyone to ban *!*@*, so I believe it > > should be limited to cservice staff only or totally blocked to everybody. > > But, leave the ability to quickly clear the X banlist by unbanning *!*@*. > > > > > > > > Nice idea, but there is one problem. If you have looked at the > > > mailingarchive you would see this problem has been discussed before > > > and noone seems to care about it. Sounds harsch and is a personal > > > opinion. But likely to be a fact. > > > Stolen usernames are considered a lack of security on the clients side > > > where the user has not put enough efforts into securing his data. Thus > > > in case of a compromised client the client is on his own and needs to > > > act damn quickly in immediately mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > > The problem that accompanies it that this mailbox receives massive > > > amounts of mail, so before they read it could take a couple of days. > > > > > > My opinion is to completly remove the option to be able to use *!*@* > > > as kick/ban mask. (Run: you stated you would use it to clean up your > > banlist, so it > > > would only be needed to UNBAN, no need to use it for BAN/KICK in this > > > matter) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Alexander mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
