ohh yeah great then what unet can do after this is charge say $5 per client/account for bot usages!
SPECIAL OFFER : (+B going for $5 USD) Apply within .... j/k , but you never know =) wensu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Maassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s) > It shouldn't even be settable by the user himself, it should be set on P10 > networks by services for example, botowners would need to get permission to > use this flag, in this way you can also control what a bot can do and what > he can't do. Giving the user himself the ability to use it only leads to > abuse. > Mbuna made a nice start in creating a class for ircu wich makes a so called > botservice class immune against excess floods. I took the time to look at > mbuna's work and enhanced it a bit with removing target limits and channel > limits. > Ok, far away from what I state above, but more restricted as simply having a > USER use it (furthermore this would require the client's core to change to > support this feature) + the system is compatible with ANY client, no need to > change anything, I: Lines can use passwords only the botadmin knows, and can > be heavily restricted regarding the amount of connections etc. > You could also do it in a way that a bot auths to services, and that > services grants him priviledges, have a look at Math's remote priviledges to > get a picture of what I'm talking, perhaps a botconnect would look like > this: > > - Plain connect as any client > - Auth to services > - If OK, have services set usermode +B > - Have services transmit privilegdes (for example NOTARGET, NOCHANLIMIT, > NOFLOOD) > (wich are actually the only privilegdes at maximum a botservice should > need to be able to reduce there amounts of bots without getting issues) > > On whois, the server would state the bot is from a botlending, an X verify > would be more detailed as it could also show the associated admin/channel > the bot is related to. > Together with the subid feature I had in mind where botaccounts are linked > to it's admin account this could work out well and would have the ability > for both sides to have decent control of whats going on. > > You could also limit the features such an account has in services, for > example: > > - A bot has no level in channels > - It can only be added/removed by cservice and or the level 500 > - available commands: op/deop/kick/ban/unban/key (key could be usefull in > case someone messed up the channel and the bot needs to ask a key, since > status requests are hardly parsable) > - above could be combined in a separate command only available for bots, > /msg X botcmd <channel> OP <nick>...<nick> > > (I think this should also satisfy Isomer's request that flew in while I > still was typing) > > But I think I tried to discuss this item many times before and always hit > the concrete wall since it was considered "useless and not wanted" as usual. > But who cares, I'm just the script kiddie that seems to have nuked the > entire network, right ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carlo Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Daniël Boeije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 1:57 PM > Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s) > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Daniël Boeije wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu? > > > > There should be one, its a good idea. > > > > This mode should be a user mode that can only > > be set with the USER command (to avoid abuse > > by tricking newbies into using it). > > > > Bots that are spotted and do not use it should > > be kill targets (to motivate owners to use it). > > > > The bots then could get special privileges > > (another reason for owners to use it) and > > special restrictions. > > > > -- > > Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >
