Hi again,
Users are allowed to type /admin to receive contact info for the server
they are on. This doesn't help a user or ISP trying to contact a server
admin that has banned their ISP via a K/G line. It's not possible to get on
another server and use /admin to get contact info for the server
Hi all,
The old X/W allowed you to overwrite a ban set on X/W. What I mean is, if
you had a ban set like [*!*@*.lamers.net] expiring in one day, you were
able to /msg x ban #channel *!*@*.lamers.net 500 336 to extend the ban for
another 2 weeks.
The new X doesn't allow this. You have to unban th
This person may be referring to the little Mirc script making the rounds to
reverse the reversed "user in logged in" to "is logged in as user"
"The Numeric used is "330". The message appears backwards due to a quirk in
the IRC protocol. A script has been written to fix the output of the new
numeri
> This patch fixes the compilation problem with m_kick.c. It also prevents
> users from setting +x if they have not authed with a service (ie have
> FLAGS_ACCOUNT set). This is to stop people setting +x and thinking they
> are now host hidden (ie they dont check with /whois), when they actually
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:33:45PM +0100, Chris Crowther wrote:
> 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
-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 :)
- --
Chr
> -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
- Original Message -
From: "Kev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Larry Kaeto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
> > If i ban a real ip, then if he/she does +x usermode, i would expect
> > undernet to know
-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 coul
but only a chanop in a channel a user joins can do that to a user and you
would need to get them back in after a sucessfull ban to continue testing
maybe it would work if a usaer had on both auto join on invite and auto
rejoin on kick but it would still
assumeing both of theese were on it would
> If i ban a real ip, then if he/she does +x usermode, i would expect
> undernet to know they are effectively the same host ... so no one can
> evade a ban.
Correct.
> however if i banned a +x host , and then the real ip showed up in the
> banlist instead of the +x host, i think this is not g
11 matches
Mail list logo
