> Is the default setting 1 connection per user@host? If so, that may be the
> problem. If that's the case, how about setting the default to 2 and give
> the admins the choice to change the default?
The default is actually "unlimited", except for "unresolved" addresses
which are limited to 1 con
Is the default setting 1 connection per user@host? If so, that may be the
problem. If that's the case, how about setting the default to 2 and give
the admins the choice to change the default?
stoney`
At 04:02 AM 4/20/2002 +0200, you wrote:
I think that is a decision that is up to the admins,
no
I think that is a decision that is up to the admins,
not something coder-com should "hard code into the servers"...
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:34:39PM -0400, Py Fivestones wrote:
> Hi,
> For some reason, many Undernet servers allow only one (1) connection from
> the same host. The result is ofte
Hi,
For some reason, many Undernet servers allow only one (1) connection from
the same host. The result is often that you are locked out of IRC after you
get dumped until your ghost leaves. You then reconnect (often automatically
via client setting) then trip the throttle feature.
Can we hard c
> > You mean maybe like their processor serial/mac address/OS id?
> >
>
> 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 only tells you what type of OS it is
- Original Message -
From: "Valcor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Ban/Kill with fingerprint
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Chojin wrote:
>
> > > What exactly do you mean by fingerprint? You can set klines and
> > > ba
ah!.. that's the part i didn't know
tanks for the info
but the idea to advertize it as soon as you login to X remain :o)
tanks again,
- Alocin
> -Message d'origine-
> De : nighty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Envoye : Le vendredi 19 avril 2002 12:03
> A : Alocin; Undernet Coder Comit
At 11:18 19/04/2002 -0400, Alocin wrote:
>Just a question, not really on X behavior, but on the new way the servers
>will hide the username...
>
>Will there be a way (a command) to choose not to set it?
>
>I mean if i log into X but doesn't want my host to look like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... will the
> Just a question, not really on X behavior, but on the new way the servers
> will hide the username...
i meant the hostname ;p
Just a question, not really on X behavior, but on the new way the servers
will hide the username...
Will there be a way (a command) to choose not to set it?
I mean if i log into X but doesn't want my host to look like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... will there be a
'/restoremyhostname' or so?
Or better t
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 PROTECT
As far as I remember, setting invisible in X doesn't stop the /msg x
verify command from working... it still displays the info... it
just stops /msg x info from returning useful data such as who
you're logged in from.
-- Valcor
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, James Evans wrote:
> You can however, hide
Was cause of me. Messages with "remove" in the body are set to bounce
(spam-catcher). Unfortunately that's a lot of legit messages, so I'm
thinking of removing that one.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Mark Foster wrote:
> OK um.
>
> Received: (from undernet@localhost)
> by trek.sbg.org (8.12.1/8.12.1) i
I think TGS meant to send this to the coder-com... Im pretty sure this
attitude isnt targetted at me, surely?
(I wasnt the one making the request.. I suggested an alternative... that
doesnt mean that Im paranoid and wont use IRC becuase im worried about
people finding my username.. hell.. its Bla
By doing /msg x verify nick you do not ask for details about a specific username. The
verify command and the info command can in no way be held up against each other.
The Username in the whois is a good idea. It's much more easy to see who's
impersonating, and it's more secure in many ways. Go
OK um.
Received: (from undernet@localhost)
by trek.sbg.org (8.12.1/8.12.1) id g3J3kIug028210
for coder-com-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:46:18 -0700
Received: from buddha.quicksilver.co.nz (buddha.quicksilver.co.nz
[202.89.130.1])
by trek.sbg.org (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3J1H9wB024960
for <
begin quote from James Evans on Apr 18, 2002:
> You can however, hide yourself a little by doing:
>
> /msg x set invisible
>
> so
> -> *x* info
> is
> -X- Unable to view user details (Invisible)
>
> instead of:
>
> -X- Information about: (#)
[snip]
Precisely. The idea is you may hide f
17 matches
Mail list logo
