On Wed Mar 10, 2004; 04:48PM -0500 Kevin L. Mitchell propagated the following: > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 16:07, Chip Norkus wrote: > > Operwalls are delineated only by a prefix in the WALLOPS message (when sent > > to users). In fact it would be trivial to fake an operwall by simply > > applying this prefix to a standard wallops message. The client has no way > > of determining if this is really an operwall or not, a script is better > > suited to this. It would be better if scripts could simply create their > > own log levels (beyond just USER1-USER4, levels with their own names etc). > > This isn't quite correct. Oper wallops are differentiated from *local* > oper wallops by that prefix, and it is done by issuing a /whois or > /userhost (I'm not sure which EPIC is using these days). The client > itself adds the prefix, not the server. (Undernet's '*' and '$' > prefixes are a little more specialized...) >
I'm speaking of the prefix to the message itself. The client will get something like: :foo WALLOPS :this is a wallops message on regular wallops and :foo WALLOPS :OPERWALL - this is an operwall message on operwalls. There's nothing preventing me from doing '/wallops OPERWALL - HA HA FOOLED YOU'. > It would be very easy for the client to differentiate an *operator* > wallops from a *server* wallops: is the origin a user or a server? > -- > Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -chip -- personal: chip norkus; renaissance hacker; [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: systems engineer @ lunarpages, inc.; [EMAIL PROTECTED] info: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for plan or keys; http://telekinesis.org _______________________________________________ List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
