[Coder-Com] ircu2.10.xx
Hi all, Just a beginner C/C++ programmer here, but I thought you might like to know, you're additions for making Opers Non-Deopable and Non-Kickable, as well as allowing them to set modes on a channel whether or not they have ops, and including the option for "walking through" modes, wasn't working. I found the resolution to all of these issues. Resolving the "walking through" modes issue: Remove the reference to IsOperOnLocalChannel(x, chan) and change it to IsAnOper(x). Resolving the making Opers Non-Deopable/Kickable: Same as first resolution. Resolving the allowing them to set modes whether or not they have ops: *Remove* the Global Variable completely, you *don't* need it, and change the if statements to just check whether or not they are an Oper, as above in the first 2 resolutions. Sincerely, Chris Gatewood
[Coder-Com] ircu2.10.xx Features
Hi all, I know I sent y'all an email earlier pertaining to the new Oper features in ircu2.10.xx, I wanted to make it clear that I know now I misunderstood these features, due to lack of doc's etc, I have a question pertaining to it.. I've been told on a 1 server network, it would work fine, what if you were to code it into every server compiled and connected to the network, would it be feasable that the servers would not reject eachother's mode set's, etc? I'm not sure, I'm thinking it would require a bit more coding that I've done. *LOL* Just thought I'd get some input. I was also curious to know if anyone would be willing to give me some tips on TCP/IP programming, more or less, pertaining to coding my own Cservice bot (more like an Eggdrop rather than X). I have the old Uworld P9 code, I've been readin through it all, and from the looks of it, including some test Telnet sessions to my personal server, I have a good rough idea of how to code one now, but I'm still running into things, I have yet to get my test program past the registration process, I can't seem to get it to do a PONG back w/ the # that was given by the server, it's not copying into the array correctly or something, anyway, any help you would be willing to provide would be *much* appreciated. Thanks, Chris Gatewood
Re: [Coder-Com] stand alone...
At 03:39 7/21/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >OK I hope it is within the scope of this list to ask my question. Been >lurking for a while and to be honest most of what you have been saying to >each other is way over my head! Anyway here goes... > > >Can I use your irc software to set up a stand alone server and then >configure it so that folks can only log in via a web interface from a >given web site (or sites) and NOT be able to access the server via a >normal irc client such as mIRC? Internet Chat Systems have implemented this, http://www.chatsystems.com/. It isn't Undernet's IRCU but they are very similar. Chris -- Chris Horry - [EMAIL PROTECTED]ICQ 18279005 |"Hi there!" Operations Engineer and Abuse minion IRC Zerbey | ...@/ http://www.wibble.co.uk (UK Silliness) PGP DSA/2B4C654E RSA/A90483ED "Don't accept average habits, open your heart and push the limits"-MC
Re: [Coder-Com] Fwd: [User-Com] A suggestion, Open SSL Sockets.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Colin Walker wrote: > Just a thought... how are other networks handling the issues behind > encryption of international communications? After all, our wonderful > country (and the very trustworthy folks down at the FBI) seem to enjoy > their ability to spy on their citizens freely. :-) afaik the US relaxed a lot of its export laws to most (western) countries. Besides if the FBI wanted to spy on Undernet easily (or Scotland Yard in the UK for that matter) they'd just compell some US server to let them capture un-encrypted traffic - and I suspect there's not a jot you could do about it. In the UK the RIP act wouldn't even let you tell other servers it was being done...or even talk to a solictor about appealing the order - big brother is watching you and doesn't want you to tell anyone. So much for the free western world. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] ssl
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Kev wrote: > Possibly eventually. The server code is still in need of a lot of clean-up, > and there are various legal issues that have to be steered clear of. Namely US export laws (which are still a pain) and France where crypto is illegal. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
[Coder-Com] Limited Users?
Hey All, Quick Question: Is there a limited # of clients that can connect to the server? My users are reporting that only 7 are able to get into a channel. I havent been able to verify this completely as I wasnt around when the complaints started rolling in. Thanks for the server, runs smooth and efficient ! ccma
Re: [Coder-Com] Uh, modified code?
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jonathan Disher wrote: > Upon doing /away foo, this is what I get back from the server... > > *** OK, you're /away now. Hurry back! Sounds like someone prefers the Hybrid away message. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Re: [Patches] Fix segfault on dns lookup timeoutsfrom C:lines
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please keep u2.10.10 available somehow, its a totally different program > than u2.10.11... (it doesnt have all those "Features") Well it does, they're just configured at compile time, instead of at run-time, for the most part. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] X channel Service.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Christian Jonassen wrote: > The X, that Undernet is using, is free of use, OK. I have got that from the other >mails > I have received from you... > BUT: Can we change X's codes and the CService site and then put it out on a site, to >make > others download it? Or is that illegal.. I don't know, I just heard that > from some other guy I know. It's released under the GPL, which makes it quite plain that you modify the source code as much as you wish; if you make it available to the public afterwards, the only stipulation is that you have to make the source available too. Does anyone actualy read the GPL? > SnowKing, RECNet administrator ( /server recnet.d2g.com ) -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] H: line causing ircu2.10.11 to crash
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Kev wrote: > Quite true. The whole configuration file parsing code sucks rocks; I'm > hoping we'll be able to do a full roto-till for the next major release > (u2.10.12). Am I allowed to mutter things about hybrids conf file parser now? *g* -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] ircu SSL support
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just out of curiosity, is integrated SSL/TLS support on the agenda for > ircu? /me looks at Isomer and smirks ;) -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] nick/ban/evade
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > /me was wrong ? Yes - the question had nothing to do with X. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] FYI ..
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, BobsKC wrote: > [1:30] if they do that to undernet servers.. > [1:30] it would be a lot harder to packet them.. > [1:30] a WHOLE lot.. They can however just packet your gateway instead, as he knows full well. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] hey!
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Aaron Mason wrote: > i think theres a list for that stuff... It's called abuse@ -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Braden Temme wrote: > Well, the part I don't quite understand it, does it require services to mask > the people's hosts or can it be done just by setting mode +x and the > server takes care of it? It's in the server, but it involves some cross-talk between the servers and services to get the users auth'd username (afaik anyway). > Braden -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Braden Temme wrote: > Will Carlo post the format for the crosstalk between x and ircu on his site? If someone gives it to him I suspect he will, since he doesn't have a great deal to do with ircu nowdays (well, except writing the light-weight channel protection code of course). Of course it should really be documented in the ircu doc/ directory ;) > Braden -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] 2.10.11
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Kev wrote: > > * /privs shows you what priviledges an oper has. > > This actually means that opers have a bitmask of privileges associated > with them; this will eventually allow finer control of what a particular > oper can and cannot do--once the config file catches up. Is that a hint? I just got up ;p -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Larry wrote: > its not any actual host provided by unet, but they use similiar > type host to trick/manilpulate people. We know, the opers are also not allowed to do anything about them unless they have proof they're being used to manipulate people; you can't just ban the whole domain/sub-domain on principle. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ircu 2.10.12 configuration
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Jean-Edouard BABIN wrote: > But when I launch it, both port are closed (but the server run) > Anyboldy has an idea ? It's a bug ? You actually expect highly alpha code to work? And yes it's a bug, I have the same problem (which is a pain when you're trying to do something). -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ban in #coder-com
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > I think everyone has the right to choose the host he wants, I don't think > that notnet has a decent reason of even issueing this ban at all. It's upto channel ops who they kick and ban, they don't have to justify those actions except to other channels op and or/channel managers. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] new /whois line backwards?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Larry wrote: > this whois reply with logged in info, its in beta? It's in the .11 tree, so it's only running on a couple of servers on the network atm; namely the ones being used for testing. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] HTML-mails
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, [iso-8859-1] Daniël Boeije wrote: > I'm getting tired of recieving spammessages WITH html trough the maillist. > Isn't it possible to filter html-emails? You can always unsubscribe. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] ircu2.10.12
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Kev wrote: > > daemon(1,0); > Doesn't seem to be documented for Solaris. I rather suspect this isn't > a standardized function. (This isn't the first time I've heard of a It's a BSD function iirc, Linux supports it too, but it's hardly portable. #include int daemon (int nochdir, int noclose); -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] /whois nick nick issue?
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Valcor wrote: > to do with it. Is it just me again? /me giggles slightly *ahem*. It was a short lived bug which has been fixed...as soon as the person who made it noticed in fact. > - Valcor -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Chojin wrote: > what about ban/kill using fingerprint associated with a provider ? (I want > to ban someone with *.aol.com associated with his fingerprint). What exactly do you mean by fingerprint? You can set klines and bans on masks such as *@*.aol.com already. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Chojin wrote: > I mean fingerprint is a sort a computer id and if I gline a users with > *@*.aol.com with his fingeprint, even if user changes his IP (with isp > reconnection) he is still glined because his fingerprint is glined. Other > users from aol can join. OK, I see what you're talking about now, but how would you go about generating a fingerprint? Baring in mind that we have no access to their local system to use details such as CPU ID...and we likely never will have either (I'm not sure I'd want that information from the users). The only way I can see of doing it would involve a Client <-> Server protocol change to allow the sending of a FINGERPRINT : during the connection phase...but this would be so easy to fake (you could just generate a random fingerprint) that it would be totaly useless. > Chojin -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Carlo Wood wrote: > Basically that means that all users have to register somehow somewhere > and practically it means that a working e-mail adress is thrown into > the equation for authentication. Well we have that with the channel service, with the +r mode we could possibly also add the ability to ban by X username. Although even that can be gotten around by creating more than one X account, so the truely persistant will still be able to get around the ban. The weak point is essentialy stopping people registering more than one account, or if they do, linking those multiple accounts so that X/whatever knows they're the same person and the applies the ban to both; but you can only really link them if they use the same e-mail adress for both...do CSC allow the freebie e-mail addresses for registration nowdays or are they still blacklisted? I'm thinking outloud here :) -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
RE: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Alocin wrote: > I'm curious... Theoricaly.. would there be a way to retreive the mac > address? The MAC address of the sending host is only available on the same LAN (or VLAN) as the sending host. Plus dialup nodes don't have MAC addresses - not real ones anyway, the adapter might have a MAC address but it's contrived; and probably always the same. And if you're using a real network card you can always override the burned-in address ;) -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] username in /whois?? please remove!
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, James Evans wrote: > At least once .11 is installed everywhere we'll be able to hide our > hosts.. Any info on when it will be deployed? When we find a mem leak...and fix some misc other items which are still outstanding. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Chojin wrote: > Each OS has his own fingerprint. By example, when sending a SYN|ACK|FIN|RST > on a closed port, and user answers with RST, It's a Windows OS (because it > doesn't follow the RFC). That's OS finger printing, which will only tell you which OS they're using (or rather which one they're likely to be using). It doesn't identify a user. What's worse is it's invansive and wouldn't make us very popular. > I also heard MSS (Maximum Segment Size) is different for each user then it > could be a sort of user fingerprint. No dice. > Chojin -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Too many connections from host
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Py Fivestones wrote: > network. Allowing servers to set 1 as the maximum connection from the same > host is overkill and just causes frustration for users who get dumped for > reasons beyond their control. The number of connections per IP is an Admin decision which the coders have no say in. If the Admins initiated a change then it would be different, but I think it's unlikely to happen since most of them like being able to restrict to 1 connection per host. As with most things Admins do it's like it or lump it (or try and convince them to give you a little more slack). > stoney` -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] adduser
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > P.S. This looks good with times new roman (non proportional) Minor problem there is that some of us use CLI clients; general guideline, formating is a no-no, we like a our plain ordinary boring e-mail. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] bug with the unban cmd
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Kev wrote: > X is a module of GNUWorld, which is a coder-com-sponsored project. > Therefore discussion of it is appropriate for this list. "so nuh!" -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] KILL Server notices not spread on all servers?
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Dave C. wrote: > True, but if someone is abusing the /kill command on people on their own > server, other opers on other servers won't know who is abusing and will not > be able to remove the offender. Opers can't remove other opers...that's the admins job (unless of course the admin delegates conf file access to one of the other opers). > That's the problem, as I see it, that the rest of the opers: (a) won't know > who is abusing the /kill command, and (b) what server they're on, because > both are hidden by HEAD_IN_SAND. And opers can see what server you're on...even if the other person is an oper, head in sand only applies to users, and remote local opers - their local server will still display the server someone is on if they /whois . But if they directly query the remote server after that to see if the user is a local oper, they won't see the server name in the reply, because the remote server can't see their oper status. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Encrypted passwords for Operators
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > I thought the new conf style is part of the .12 tree ? Anywayz, first let's I meant .12 - typo. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] New Style Config Files (fwd)
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Oliver Keenan wrote:
> Hi Crew,
>
> What's the main differences between the .10/.11 and the .12 style configs?
.12 uses a C-style config file, with a bison parser - it was taken
from Hybrid ircd. Essential, a .11 O line might look like this:
O:*@*.shad0w.org.uk::_Shad0w_::10
A .12 one looks like this:
operator {
local = no;
host = "*@*.shad0w.org.uk";
password = "";
name = "_Shad0w_";
class = "local";
};
As you can see, the classes are also named rather than
numbered...makes visual identifcation a lot easier. There's also a huge
set of privileges in .12 to replace the flat local or global concept.
If you want to see the new conf files in action, just check out
the HEAD of the CVS, which will give you the .12 development code,
including the new conf file parser. Although be warned the term Alpha
might be a little generous ;)
> //Ozzy
--
Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] ACCESS cmd + 2.10.11 beta2release question
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > Question is: Where are those 68 opers if they don't help users (wich they do > not need to, ok), wich means they would have plenty of time for this. There are only a few opers who deal with routing the network...purely because they're the ones who know what they're doing and get recognised as the authorities on the matter...there's also a lot of politics to do with routing, like US opers don't like to touch the routing of EU servers (and vice versa). Practical upshot, unless there are opers about willing/able to re-route the network when there's lag, it stays the way it is until some turn up. Yes it sucks, but it's how it is and how it's been for ages. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] proposal MD5+salt password
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bas wrote: > proposal MD5+salt password, feel free to comment on this I'm toying around with doing this right now, I have a patch for plain MD5 atm, just needs changing to salt the MD5. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] proposal MD5+salt password
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Isomer wrote: > in 2.10.11 we pass the full salt to crypt(3), so if the system uses md5, > then ircu should too. That relies on the system using MD5 though...with the patch I have atm, the MD5 routines are included in the source tree, so it always uses MD5 regardless of whether the system natively supports it or not. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Call for Volunteers: Feature addition
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > My other question regarding this is: Why would you want to limit > opmode's in certain channels ? There are channels on Undernet which a lot of people (including myself) would rather no-one did anything with. Unfortunatly some opers can't be trusted to obey the consesus of logic. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re[2]: [Coder-Com] Call for Volunteers: Feature addition
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > Well, why are those opers still present on the network then and don't > get removed from the ircd.conf ? :) The P-word. > Best regards, > Alexandermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] GNUWorld with cygwin (fwd)
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Cosmin Marcu wrote: > it doesn't load the modules (cservice, ccontrol, > etc...). The "error" is in ltdl.c file in function > lt_dl_open(...). I would suspect you need to look at cygwin documentation to do with porting...the modules will need to be built as DLLs, the dlopen() code may not work on cygwin. Other than that, you're on your own. ircu is only coded to work on a few platforms. And Windows isn't one of them. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] oper privileges
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Karl Rotert wrote: > How can I grant oper priviledges to all user joining a channel? By learning the difference between oper and op. > --kr -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Starting gnuworld
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Inge Hagen wrote: > I have reinstall gnuworld.. And I get this error on ./gnuworld -c -f > GNUWorld.conf > moduleLoader> Error opening module (libcservice.la): libpq++.so.4: > cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory It says it can't find the shared library libpq++.so.4, at a guess I'd say it's a Postgres SQL library. Make sure you have it and if you do, make sure it's in the runtime library search path...if it's a Linux box look at /etc/ld.so.conf. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Re: [Patches] [CVS] Module ircu2.10: Change committed
On Sun, 26 May 2002, Kev wrote: > You're probably right, just pointing this out--Iso should have caught the > change :) This is why people should keep their cvs checkouts up to date and use cvs diff ;) -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Half-Op
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > something like that is being made, as "op levels" - they are all ops, > with a @, but lower level ops can't de-op higher level ops. basically, > it is to prevent this: a ops b, b de-ops a. iirc that only works with the lightweight channel registration being done by Carlo (or possibly already done, I haven't been paying much attention). -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] HIZLI & SINIRSIZ sex
On Sunday 21 Jul 2002 6:04 pm, bas wrote: > How about a kind of lameness filter? > some criteria to deny a mail: SpamAssassin could probably spot a lot of them. You always run the risk of loosing good e-mail then though, unless you manualy check everything it blocks, which could be tedious which I think is why it's not done. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] IPv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 25 Jul 2002 5:58 pm, The legend of the darkness wrote: > I am planning to start digging in .12 source to add IPv6 Support. > > What are your opinions about this? You might want to look at the IPv6 code in Hybrid and try to use that as a starting point. We will make this Hybrid IRCu! *mwahahahah* - oh wait, that was my secret private manifesto wasn't it, damn. > Andreas Louca - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9QDqFz8bl0gyT/hERAocoAKCdhofUZ8mcYyNqLKXLDHqtCSyePgCg5r+0 g9x+tb+8a8km9MvzjE222Tc= =wyNg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] 3 questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 01 Aug 2002 5:19 pm, Kev wrote: > > why is there no logging support in the other standard configuration? and > > if i ve missed it, where is it? > > I don't understand your question. I think he wants to know if you can log in ircu2.10.12 (I'm assuming he's talking about the .12 branch anyway); if they'd bothered to read doc/readme.log they'd know the answer. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9SbKiz8bl0gyT/hERAm8JAKC6KPZUrsFAFQFHQoo99LNwRfPIgACgtHth xnf5kDtoKOKbh8TMcQR+/II= =yYdB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Feature lines purpose
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 02 Aug 2002 5:23 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [2] this assumes that you have solved the trivial problem of getting all > your serveradmins awake and on IRC at the same time. Getting them online at all in some cases would be a miracle. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9St9fz8bl0gyT/hERAvt/AJsF7ARd1PbcAE2iP38UI2CaoBZmtACg12WR ocZfur6N6tiELf66kvTmxQc= =EvzK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 18 Aug 2002 1:55 pm, Carlo Wood wrote: > Disconnect bots that are idling when a server is full and > a human wants to connect. I can see that one being unpopular, not to mention possibly exploitable for channel take overs; vis. if you can find out what server a bot is on, connect drones to the server to fill it up and make it start dumping bots. Possibly hard to achieve, but it would be possible. They wouldn't even have to taget a specific bot, you could do it just to be plain annoying which is enough reason for some people. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9X7D3z8bl0gyT/hERAogSAKCvfc2cwwawx9zhpno1CgxKS43f1wCfdfW/ LLjg8m4Cyx/kdGdFJzVkP2E= =pQg6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 18 Aug 2002 9:22 pm, Tom Scott wrote: > Yes, but couldn't people just open a client and set +b for someone even > though they're not a bot? No, you just make the mode so that it can only be set by a server, the same as the +k on X is. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YA0lz8bl0gyT/hERApMtAJ9ZF9XVnNNjMCYvtOHcRuomtWaN9gCg+BOI O/SG/prSA430iPcDKtKpC/Q= =5Y2P -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 19 Aug 2002 4:51 am, Neil Spierling wrote: > How would you tell if they are bots tho? I suppose ctcp checks could be > done but they can be easily faked The same way we tell now, intuition and experience. Imperfect, but when they're the only tools you have available, you have to make do. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9YL5Wz8bl0gyT/hERAtLFAJ4gByo8iXYo5TUSrvEcfH7RATaPlwCeIP3O hSND20XIXDRbfsGo6j9beD4= =+UJz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Unable to start server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 19 Sep 2002 9:14 pm, ChyeNW wrote: > Anybody knows why this happens ? Yes, you're running it as the superuser, ie root. Don't. Run it as some other user. Most servers run the ircd as irc. Makes sense when you think about it. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9ihCzz8bl0gyT/hERArJGAKDp/5t959qpzoc33QplnKm/Xd5YhACff7yN Sl1V09/5kmY7YnKmq/lFNRU= =gxkV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Gingivitis? - Gum Disease? - Bleeding Gums? qiso
? don-a-hoe lol woot - > > Sue Donahoe > at least its midly amusing spam.
Re: [Coder-Com] Account Suggestion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 22 October 2002 10:32, Frederic Kinnaer wrote: > Why don't base I:Line passwords on X passwords ?? Ex: Only that account > could sign in to the server .. (For hidden servers), and if services down, > the current I:Line password. I don't really see the point in that. > Anyway, i'm in the oppinion that you always have to be able to log in to X > via PRIVMSG ! No one is talking about removing the ability to login via privmsg, just supplementing it with the ability to login on connect, so that mode +x can be set on your client before it's even announced to the network. That way your host is hidden from the start. > Regards, > Ace - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9tTmSz8bl0gyT/hERAg7EAKDy+86MgEq8xraXi8l2jQYSo+yikwCg18bb Fwv901zW8Vs6KOaWB8Eo+Zc= =Tkfj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 11:19 am, peter green wrote: > however i don't like hidden host at all because it means if you ban a user > they can just get a new X account and come back. some isp's give users an > entire subdomain to themselves so they could get as many new X accounts as > they liked Last time I checked, registrations were manualy checked by services, they can also ban entire IP ranges from registering accounts. Multiple regitrations from the same e-mail sub-domain would likely be queried. > the only soloution i can see to this is to make e-mail addresses visible > and then have x enforce bans against them > From: Entrope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not a viable suggestion - you're opening people upto spam, mail bombing, etc. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9rp6Rz8bl0gyT/hERAokDAJ0QYZS5A0iL2GglMjtOTAgm6XbvIACfWpf/ S8+qyuXu9kgW0L8Tfq5xEiY= =8XaJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 2:40 pm, Richard Smith wrote: > > regitrations from the same e-mail sub-domain would likely be queried. > > Are queried ;) Thought they might be, but I didn't want to speak authoratively on your policies :) - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9rwKLz8bl0gyT/hERAh7+AKDfL/rsIYdoeSoumS/hG3+Uhsr0TwCdFTrB UTeUhDsrNMkfaXRiF8i5k3M= =/86D -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Cmaster's languages/translations table
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 26 October 2002 11:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wanted to insert the haloween language (id = 15 in table languages) into > the cservice db today, but I noted that language_id 15 in table > translations is already taken by hebrew ... That's a problem why? Just put haloween somewhere else. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9unroz8bl0gyT/hERAnneAJ4nkEkzYgPJPAXDCf0TayICUzPLeACgmViL K2Ki4627bKLk1G+iBCmpiGM= =5maH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] a minor bug with mschat and the undernet?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 26 October 2002 11:40, Tom Rons wrote: > last parameter may be prefixed with a colon. Chances are MS Chat is not > (fully) RFC compliant, and IIRC it is no longer being maintained by > Microsoft either :/ MS Chat was never very IRC friendly. It was really designed to be used with MS's Chat Server, which was just a perversion of IRC. I loathe MS Chat clients anyway, with their annoying "appears as" crap. > Tom Rons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > (http://openircd.org/trons/) - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9unttz8bl0gyT/hERAvKuAKCd1whwtn72tObOktTQACGtLp0QJwCgpLhw 7e2d0GsELs4lVLRI4luI0IE= =EHB8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[Coder-Com] Re: [Patches] [ undernet-ircu-Patches-629822 ] Make stats v available to regular users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 28 October 2002 12:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > much defeats the purpose of it. This patch removes the > oper-only restriction from STATS v. HIS_STATS_v still > applies, obviously. Making it visible to anyone also makes hiding the server map entirely pointless not to mention the fact that it exposes the hubs. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9vjStz8bl0gyT/hERApIvAKDKcBCJ/T/PJFK64nN8jzulil6XiwCgqSyX jPs4zrY7ZmbHMaY7KIYk7pI= =LhMo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT. <- hoax
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 16 November 2002 12:08, Alex Cruz Farmer wrote: > This email is fake... Dont send anything back, its very dodgy. Well duh. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE91mgRz8bl0gyT/hERAlSfAKDwHAnc3Gj7ZysLFPMC4h8Cfd2VLQCg04F8 mtXZt/lKtJCZBMeQcpbwl8k= =E/92 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] country in users.undernet.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 16 November 2002 14:14, Richard Smith wrote: > As a New Zealander I can say, sad news is... Like some small ISP's, some > countries can't afford it either. Well, you can talk to Australia without much hastle. Not much consilation I know ;) - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE91mjrz8bl0gyT/hERAn16AJ49+/t+6jzdQmjhSFC61AATRNcprgCfeLqE ZIOOnyxgSA7S+HDLSy4uDWo= =uJqe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] country in users.undernet.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 16 November 2002 23:00, Py Fivestones wrote: > You can always make [EMAIL PROTECTED] your U@host. > By the way, is there a character limit on the U part of the U@host? (amount > of letters I mean). 512 octets. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE91tgAz8bl0gyT/hERAsV6AKC/H7a2tHFmyxnr6snsIQLoGAN9cQCdGVkm Uj9OBV603xxs7ws/vPJ5BCI= =20LI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] country in users.undernet.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 16 November 2002 23:42, Chris Crowther wrote: > 512 octets. I should point out that's how long it can be in networking terms, ircu truncates to 9 characters the same as a nick. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE91u4qz8bl0gyT/hERApiWAJ99JSubrEZ0xZBZEXzmoLxnpHp2OQCfQji5 7YBfmJAHiWE/7GxCvKIPVxE= =PrEw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] IRCu Ident Proceedure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 19 November 2002 22:52, tim ireland wrote: > for up to 3 minuites > is there any way to fix this? At a guess I'd say there's an over zealous firewall somewhere blocking the ident reply traffic, so that ircu is not getting the replies and thus waiting for them timeout instead. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE92sjyz8bl0gyT/hERAhNBAKCn1vea8FthK/lgs0ggSPJlg/OB4ACgg/iP kYALjpmFVUtB785AnNm37Lg= =wbWX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] a minor bug with mschat and the undernet?
On Thursday 28 November 2002 15:14, peter green wrote: > the best soloution i can think of for the mschat users would be for them to > run a relay which breaks up the messages and rebuilds them the way mschat > likes them I think the best solution would be for them to stop using mschat and use an IRC client. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 03 December 2002 02:50, Rodrigo sl wrote: > p.s. sorry for my ortography Orthography ;) And nice use of irony there. > p.s. respond me please You're running as root, use another account such as ircd to run the ircd. > = > Attentamente - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE97GZzz8bl0gyT/hERApuYAKC/CmBdgu8DjfEbWnOW4LoXuzYoHACg6qQG iqmfX/3kylrlPqUEpJlJFgI= =5S1P -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Re: [Patches] [CVS] Module ircu2.10: Change committed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 04 December 2002 18:48, Aaron Catella wrote: > Is this something that has been discussed and deemed > necessary? Yes. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQE97lyLz8bl0gyT/hERApB6AJsGqSnH6zwK0KlAWfX+1molSyi/jACYn9Nc /vu86hHmCZ8joOX/XkzRWQ== =bWDE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 05 December 2002 13:31, daaave wrote: > anything about "rc3" so... But, the entire thing is only 3 lines, > really it takes just as long to simply type in the changes manually as > it does to apply the patch. ;) Speaking personaly (I think this is the general consensus though) unified diffs (diff -u) are preferable, because they can be read easily. What a patch is actually doing to the source can be seen without having to think too hard *g* - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE974iTz8bl0gyT/hERAg27AKCgVcN5B1kzk9uZncrw5/l3sBBg9ACfeR1P v6+7KNc4w4GZ2fiU1x2OPBU= =GPoB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 05 December 2002 13:31, daaave wrote: > # "diff-rc3" format. I susspect it means diff -rC3: recursive context 3 lines of copied text. I personaly hate context diffs... - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE974kiz8bl0gyT/hERAi1mAKCPkEZzm+tpMNpZAoHyhRGCEaE60ACeNART wYp93XqZqaQVNNir8up3j2w= =oKxL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] SSL on undernet ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 09 December 2002 17:34, Shogun wrote: > please tell me if there is any eu undernet server that knows SSL conections No Undernet server supports SSL since the daemon doesn't. It's not likely to be something which gets added for Client <> Server connections either. I've personaly thought about using it for Server <> Server connections - but there are still crypto issues in some countries we have servers in. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE99MfXz8bl0gyT/hERAkfoAKC80Ze+8++BkME0IGUKT6+NgKhyYwCfbFV2 sftfgTQ7Dxm9nag2JO8mKmA= =sq8U -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Opnotice weirdness
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 12:21 am, Mark Foster wrote: > Forgive my dodgy typing, but it would appear that opnotices are prefixed > with a random number of @'s now? It got broken in .03 and fixed in .04 as soon as someone noticed, ie about 30 minutes after servers stated running .03. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+D7P0z8bl0gyT/hERAkysAKC9A3DbQeZ0LQDwADCIqZ2TpQcwVwCgtQLe 2cUvUvt6JtbdcqSgtvOc7GM= =nNVg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Mode Ideas..should I include them in patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 8:25 am, Tom Scott wrote: > What if we had a mode +c (this is an example btw), for no mIRC colors? > Before sending messages to the channel, it would check for mIRC > colors...and strip them if +c was enabled. This would prevent a lot of > bans from occurring... Too much overhead for the IRC servers and not really needed - if people don't like the colours most clients will allow them to be stripped off. And reducing the number of bans for using colours isn't really someting we're concerned with - people should just learn to respect the rules of channels they go in. > Another idea: A mode +o (yet again example letter), for Opers Only? If > some net/server wants to have a #staff channel or a #meeting channel or > something, they could include +o so only Opers could join...Now I know Increadibly limited use not to mention esoteric. I can't see it being accepted on Undernet. Adding a new channel mode which will get used on one channel on the whole network doesn't make any real sense. In general if we want to make a channel oper only, we just set it +i like anyone else would when they want to control who gets in. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EBX/z8bl0gyT/hERAu2PAKDqL8frcs6uwale/iBP2R3qstk5YQCgqUKW 0BxuaRNuQI0OlJB05PeItzE= =7sfj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Mode Ideas..should I include them in patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 10:51 am, Tom Scott wrote: > Yes! I have a follower ;-) Channel modes they are, but +o is a > usermode...Why can't it be a channelmode too? +i is both... (invite and > invisible) +o is also already a channel mode, how do you think you OP someone? - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EFO2z8bl0gyT/hERAgNkAJ9QCb68cfrpi/LKopA8N7HoC2EaHwCgnnu2 iUGTBLzOYXlS1iWbXof4bD0= =uUjI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Mode Ideas..should I include them in patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 10:48 am, Tom Scott wrote: > What if we let netopers make their own commands on the server? Like... > /x or /xchan? Would that work? Why? - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EFQkz8bl0gyT/hERAl9UAKCALduKgN4TTFAAj+z5VeORTgXXZQCgpSjD I3FJNw4UdYAcuY9ql8l1a0Y= =cmcf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Mode Ideas..should I include them in patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 10:47 am, you wrote: > Yeah but sometimes clients tend to lock up @ the sight of mIRC code Screwy and badly written clients aren't our problem. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EFVWz8bl0gyT/hERAojxAJ9cAah8EnYNYkaArDekS3AZTxKDwwCfWGAo iDspArOmoKZ/QXHbKFWiXD8= =7Clx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Opnotice weirdness
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 11:42 am, stoney` wrote: > I couldn't reproduce the behavior using Mirc, it may be your script. No, it's a bug as I've said, Kev has said and Perry has said. I fixed it in .04. > stoney` - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EJZNz8bl0gyT/hERAi/EAKDuoQdw8KTukblxD+eT7JDdyvY6SwCfbnRl Z2pL4jv+o2/UYjEK+h6L+vA= =x2cW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] New Mode Ideas..should I include them in patch?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 Dec 2002 5:42 pm, you wrote: > Now I know some have aliases that take care of that, but not everyone > can program their client..It would just be a nice favor for us to > possibly add that or something. There's been discussion about adding something like an /x command to the IRCu code. But it's something which has to be thought about carefuly, since it would have to take into account the possiblilty of future expansion of the CSC services, ie atm we only have a single service online, in future we may have more again. I don't see why an oper would need to be able to add their own commands. If other networks want to use ircu as a base and have their own commands, they can maintain their own tree based on ircu...which some networks already do. > - Necro - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EJqxz8bl0gyT/hERArAjAJ4lCrYXuHqrZsIzqc0wRybmCMPJgACg9Ot8 yGp5ZSDYcl3sRC8AbURSB9A= =jY3m -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] invite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 31 Dec 2002 7:58 pm, bas wrote:
> if doing an invite to an invalid channel name, there is no "no such
> channel" reply.
> is this intended?
Yes.
- --
Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Ehe7z8bl0gyT/hERAtd5AKCsbINrpLPoe5+34dHp9EBq8hXeqQCg3QB7
9EAHKPtowRkZ+z7PVzKuEF4=
=cAYH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] suggestion of a WHOIS modification
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 02 Jan 2003 12:30 pm, Tom Scott wrote: > into the channel, the Chanop would op him, and the IRCop would put the > ban on the flooder. Opers have no place setting bans in a channel they're not usualy an OP in, and it's not something I'd personaly like to encourage. > - Necromncr - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FDp1z8bl0gyT/hERAjZAAJ9O2Rdzc6Rp6ZD5deIoTHQs0p8DWgCfea3I r5UpeulFZULjkDijOZFqD+U= =inq+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] actual host in WHOIS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 02 Jan 2003 2:58 pm, bas wrote: > if one does /WHOIS on himself and he's +x, show actual user@host actual > IP reply? > on other nets with +x theres similar ways to show people their own real > host in case they want to know. If you WHOIS yourself and you're +x you'll be shown your U@H the same way as an oper would see it, namely: :Actual user@host, Actual IP The numeric is 338. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FHFrz8bl0gyT/hERAoFNAJ9LYn9tBXbHX9Tc6ALFqIS6G/srZACghu6v iBUKN8FzzUq7C0mWX03CED4= =CrGR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] suggestion of a WHOIS modification
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 02 Jan 2003 4:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You also give the perfect rpotection to pples wanting to do any illegal > activities at all... That's a specious argument, if law enforcment want information, they'll just ask for it. > - Alocin - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FJngz8bl0gyT/hERAncqAJ0bpblblJiKiQuRUGQS/xx/3VMSIgCZAU5o iAxcGjZBtN8WUDrKSJgEx7E= =2PWn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Channel names with character 3 in them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 03 Jan 2003 4:54 pm, The Storm Surfer wrote: > a 'cahannel does not exist' error. Since when? How come? Will this be > fixed? The RFC doesn't seem to say anything about any channel names being > illegal. It's not going to be "fixed" because it's not an error. Rather deliberate in fact. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Fk7/z8bl0gyT/hERAqwQAJ47h5Dt0LvBuiXy4yW6TCHidTuuIQCcCGnz pcbA+fvMak69NTKMfwLw3HU= =JK17 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Support Channel announcement..opers please go there!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 04 Jan 2003 5:23 am, Tom Scott wrote: > You're right, but they'll never be able to come on Undernet ever again! You have no idea how GLINEs work, do you. They *expire*. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FuMez8bl0gyT/hERApOXAKCszZNTx+hA7myWICHsAyFnudMiAACfbRem jM5mmWiNo4bfErBnMp07Cxg= =iQzs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Virus sent on mailinglist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 14 Jan 2003 6:37 am, Daniël Boeije wrote: Personaly I use SpamAssassin and never see them. > Best regards, > KewlKiddo - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+JEs3z8bl0gyT/hERAt/+AJ0ahIU31njVNrNPQjgHn9SdpzB+kACg42ai duZmkgZk00R/BeBnN2KmBdA= =6WOp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] an error
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 30 Jan 2003 11:20 am, bas wrote: > this means you must make an ircd.conf file in ircu's "lib" dir. theres > already an example.conf in that directory. you can base ircd.conf on it. We really need to fix the directory layout of ircu when it installs. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+OSsGz8bl0gyT/hERAlhAAKChEdG2UnZTOj+cgo96CMZO3dsAwQCg5m49 zz30Y+L94TXa98L+GT4HyhU= =McDU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] IRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 7:08 am, stoney` wrote: > User-com already replied to this email (multiple CC's) > stoney` No-one should have followed up to it on here anyway. *glowers at people* - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+O7Koz8bl0gyT/hERAlWIAKC+QXcFroKwDyKzP1JRPhjlKZ4XvgCfeJct CflF3uIn9r9tKkbVaKEhvTY= =wyXR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Fwd: [User-Com] ipv6?
On Tuesday 04 Feb 2003 5:17 am, stoney` wrote: > >are any undernet servers going to support ipv6? It's being worked on. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] Spam
On Sunday 16 Feb 2003 1:25 am, Stacy Brown Thellend wrote: > spams do not get through. I think I get something like 8-10 bounced spams > everyday that don't make it to the list. Everytime a spam gets through, I > adjust the filters to make it harder for more to get through. The ones that get through generaly get snuffed by SpamAssassin at my mailserver. -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
Re: [Coder-Com] ircu2.10.11.04
On Sunday 23 Feb 2003 10:49 am, WebMaster Chat-Energy.Net wrote: > Im starting the ircd with ./ircd , this going online, but 1-2 minutes later > again offline... i have no idea.. Is the ircd creating a core file? > Please help me ;-((( Try compiling ircu with --enable-debug and run the daemon in debug mode (ircd -t -n -x 3) and see what the last thing it says before exiting is. -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
Re: [Coder-Com] An arror in ircu2.10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 04 Mar 2003 7:23 am, Marco wrote: > userload.c: In function `update_load': Erm, can someone translate that into English? - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZIj4z8bl0gyT/hERAuOIAKD1Lqp0RW9t6891BzNFoSxdgyEWqwCfavr8 kYTdIpjrcHIQVk3kICCeK+M= =i9Gr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] An arror in ircu2.10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 04 Mar 2003 1:19 pm, net wrote: > it's supposed to be. You may want to change the #include in > userload.c to #include ? Having read the translation I'd be inclined to agree. > Cheers, > netski - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZOpqz8bl0gyT/hERAq13AJ4oE/2obkGJ87LcsrL4avGWmb/SBgCfQGt/ DVtCZqsXIjT8k+CiJAi8nww= =tunv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] user parameter on raws.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 10 Mar 2003 11:25 am, peter green wrote: > mirc sends this way and that is the worlds most popular irc client so no > net would dare disallow it I would. I see no problem with loosing Windows users ;) - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+bN14z8bl0gyT/hERAtt/AKCC1UIKGJxS4+J6XlKNYb4gGRy6LACfZMXF QDFcwhAiXFoyUj7eK3Bd4cg= =squg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] user parameter on raws.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 23 Mar 2003 12:14 am, daaave wrote: > > LOSING > GRAMMAR POLICE Spelling police actually *g* - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+f2T3z8bl0gyT/hERArT5AJ9SSuXXuA8dz6ToRk5L+TBJqhsptwCfbgZB yI1pZWFBrlfrJFLxSRXhzzk= =G1YK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] cvslogs?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 24 Mar 2003 2:35 pm, Kev wrote: > There hasn't been much development in the past month. Mostly because the Senior Coders' real lives caught up with them. Yes, we do have some. My summer break is comming up at the end of June though, so I might actually get round to doing something. - -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+f2anz8bl0gyT/hERAmRGAJoCO9Or1cmlhsv7iYtqMJlDN6P14wCgyAO+ S1GuXowArHOUsv7NVM0U+Yo= =Fgvp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Coder-Com] Annoying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 Mar 2003 1:51 am, Mark Foster wrote: > A[13:45] *** Thrust was kicked by Oslo2.NO.EU.undernet.org (Net Rider) > [13:45] *** PhoeniX^ was kicked by Oslo2.NO.EU.undernet.org (Net Rider) > > Anything actually going to be done to prevent this? No. There's no way of telling the difference. - -- Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.shad0w.org.uk/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+f/JOz8bl0gyT/hERAmisAJ9SUxKyI4rQqMhLVGYskBlQrkKb+gCcD/MO Sruz2l3G84wWf6cIGJ7KR8c= =NUFt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: RE : [Coder-Com] Fwd: [Cservice] accessability enquiry
On Sunday 30 Mar 2003 1:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And theres exactly the same `issue' for clients rejoining during a split - > I forget which way around it is but a normal client join and a netsplit > join are different - one is : prefixed, the other is not. A lot of these problems were caused by the fact that RFC1459 was actually written after the IRC protocol was in use...it doesn't exactly match up with what the daemon was doing at a lot points. Some stuff is missing entirely iirc. Skrewed up standards are not the sole preserve of MS ;) -- hikari (光) [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
Re: [Coder-Com] bug in /list
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 5:43 am, Captain Kirk wrote: > I always thought it was the other way around. If you set +p, the channel > won't appear in /list but if you whois someone who "is" in the channel it 4.2.6 List Message "[...] Private channels are listed (without their topics) as channel "Prv" unless the client generating the query is actually on that channel. Likewise, secret channels are not listed at all unless the client is a member of the channel in question." Although afaic we know longer send "Prv" as the channel name for a Private (+p) channel...I don't know if anyone ever did tbh. I believe the intended operation is that Private channels will show up on LIST, without their topic, but membership of the channel is not visible through use of NAMES, WHO or WHOIS, unless the client using the command is in the channel anyway. Secret (+s) channels are hidden on LIST as well as membership information being hidden. > will show up. As for +s, it shouldn't showup in whois (unless you're > /whois'ing yourself) or /list. Not too sure about the code part though, as Or you're in the same channel as the person you're whois'ing. > Captain Kirk > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
Re: [Coder-Com] bug in /list
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 8:25 pm, you wrote: > Unfortunately for whatever reason this is _not_ the way the current version > of ircu works. Both +p and +s are totally hidden from /list (it doesn't > even show a "*" or "Prv" like some older ircd versions did). I can't see a constructive difference between showing the channel names as Prv and hiding them completly. The only way it would make sense is the way I stated, otherwise +p and +s become analegous and +p is just there for historical reasons. -- hikari [EMAIL PROTECTED] oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
