Well technically since cservice issues usernames that allow users to mode
+x, they need to be notified when there's credible evidence of abuse.
Unfortunately, the only way to confirm abuse is by having an IRCop check
user@hosts of clones and then report it to cservice (messy isn't it). We
curre
You mean like #support on GamesNET or #feds on QuakeNet? That kinda thing?
Py Fivestones wrote:
The question still remains: How can a user complain to a lamer's ISP?
I think there's a need to have something in place to allow users to
report abuse to ISPs. Currently the only thing a user can do
The question still remains: How can a user complain to a lamer's ISP? I
think there's a need to have something in place to allow users to report
abuse to ISPs. Currently the only thing a user can do is email abuse@
(after the fact) or track down an IRCop who may or may not decide to join a
chan
On 2003-01-02T11:45-0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
) To the peoples who are suggesting that this would deprive sormal users
) of their protection, let remember some things:
) 1- It will always be a choice to join or not a channel. auto-join on
) invite are not an issue, this is a client matter. Wan
-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 i
> You also give the perfect rpotection to pples wanting to do any illegal
activities at all...
So your fix would involve exposing everyone just to catch a little minority
that is causing mayham ?
I'm growing tired of this "hey illegal stuff happens so we should just get
rid of any and all privacy
> You also give the perfect rpotection to pples wanting to do any illegal activities
>at all...
>
> Regards,
>
> - Alocin
if someone does something really bad, such as bringing 30 clones and
flood, it can be against the net policy so the chanop who has logged
everything can contact an IRCop, th
Chris Crowther wrote:
>
> -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
> >
-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 y
> While I am sure there are users that abuse multiregistering to X
> from a
> single IP, there are also multiple users employing single IP's
> in the many
> household and small business LAN's utilizing various forms of
> shared connections.
>
> I wonder if the loss of utility for these users might
> The hidden +x host was created with a reason: To protect users
> and Undernet
>
> staff. If I run a ddos/botchan, and an oper walks in to gline
> them, or a cservice admin join and removes my X bot, I really
> think I shouldn't be able
>
> to see his IP, even if I'm a chanop.
>
> Spike
This is
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alocin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Undernet Coder Comitee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] suggestion of a WHOIS modification
> But a channel op could be an attacker too! A
The hidden +x host was created with a reason: To protect users and Undernet
staff. If I run a ddos/botchan, and an oper walks in to gline them, or a
cservice admin join and removes my X bot, I really think I shouldn't be able
to see his IP, even if I'm a chanop.
Spike
Op woensdag 1 januari 2003
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.
Why should Undernet protect some flooder`s IP/Host from being visible ?
IMO If he did something serious like heavy spamming It`s a good reason to
let his host be known so ppl can contact his ISP
AiR.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Fre
Se
At 13:30 02-01-2003, you wrote:
But a channel op could be an attacker too! Also...if we're gonna stop
multiregistering we could possibly just say only 3-5 names per IP address.
Also..Chanops could possibly talk to an IRCop and only the IRCop could
find out the real hostmask..Chanops would never
> But a channel op could be an attacker too! Also...if we're gonna stop
> multiregistering we could possibly just say only 3-5 names per IP address.
>
> Also..Chanops could possibly talk to an IRCop and only the IRCop could
> find out the real hostmask..Chanops would never know it. IRCops would go
> find out the real hostmask..Chanops would never know it. IRCops would go
> into the channel, the Chanop would op him, and the IRCop would put the
> ban on the flooder.
>
> - Necromncr
exposing the real host to everyone in the channel.
-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 somethi
But a channel op could be an attacker too! Also...if we're gonna stop
multiregistering we could possibly just say only 3-5 names per IP address.
Also..Chanops could possibly talk to an IRCop and only the IRCop could
find out the real hostmask..Chanops would never know it. IRCops would go
into t
20 matches
Mail list logo
