On Monday 15 Dec 2003 3:43 pm, Justin Cassidy wrote:
> moderated" and that it sends the message to the chanops only. Any ideas
> how I can do this?
Actually, look at relay_channel_message() and relay_channel_notice() in
ircd_relay.c
> -=xachen=-
--
hikari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ Lond
On Monday 15 Dec 2003 3:43 pm, Justin Cassidy wrote:
> moderated" and that it sends the message to the chanops only. Any ideas
> how I can do this?
Take a look at client_can_send_to_channel() in channel.c
> -=xachen=-
--
hikari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
daemoni
On Thursday 13 Nov 2003 11:22 am, Kevin Arima wrote:
> Please tell me you have a way to fix it properly in .05 ;)
It was fixed in .05 - we recalled .05 because of a bug in the GLINE code.
Then next release is .06 which should be out very soon hopefuly.
> Kevin "Starfox" Arima
--
Chri
On Sunday 26 Oct 2003 12:23 am, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> (I mean, Kqueue is great, but not all servers run *bsd (netbsd has
> kqueue now, so that should make it *))
As a general policy we support BSD, Linux and Solaris. The modular event
engine is kev's addition, so adding a new polling met
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 28 Jun 2003 4:23 pm, Julien Landry wrote:
> You have a version of ircu2.10.11.04 for windows ? Or just Unix ?
We don't create a windows version of ircu, but beware creates one which is
compatible with ircu: http://www.bewareircd.
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:55 pm, you wrote:
> How about we drop +p as a separate mode and make it do +s for
> compatibility?
Yeah, or just remove it entirely, people would soon stop using it *g*
--
hikari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:30 pm, you wrote:
> channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
> display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
> it's place.
Which is pretty much what I said. +p *should* be visible on /list, but
should be hidden on a
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 di
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 chann
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 problem
-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 th
-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 thou
-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-
-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
-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]
-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
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
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 tha
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/
-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 @ Londo
-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 irc
-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
-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
-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 "fix
-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
-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
-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
-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
ht
-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 ab
-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_" Crowth
-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.Under
-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.Or
-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
-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
-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
mi
-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 Cli
-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 PROTECT
-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 personal
-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 SIGNA
-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.
> =
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 an
-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 repl
-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_&quo
-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 "_Shad
-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
-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.u
-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
-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 IR
-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 ...
-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
-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 so they coul
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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 mir
-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 irc
-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 th
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 te
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 re
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/
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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/
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 o
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::_S
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/
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
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/
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
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 t
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 u
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
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, th
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
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,
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.
-
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
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
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/
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/
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 ot
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
some
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
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.
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
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
server
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/
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:/
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/
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/
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_" Crow
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 i
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 "_S
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/
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
