If Client1 -> ServerA is encrypted,
ServerA <-> ServerB is encrypted,
ServerB <- Client2 is encrypted,
Then that particular conversation (query) would be encrypted end to end,
yes?
For as long as the server accepts non-encrypted client connections, then
yes there's the obvious aspect of all things
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Donald WHIZZARD Lambert wrote:
> Is there a real reason a user would want a
> non registered user to not be able to join, but be able to
> talk ? I can see the reverse, acting as the +m does now.
Yes. If you're using temporary application of the mode to prevent a
join/pa
This also crossed my mind but we're talking Windows users here.
There arent many decent command line apps for Windows nowadays.
ircII/epic etc is a linux app and yes, would probably be far better - but
thems the breaks...
I feel for the dude, a good friend of mine is fully blind and always had
fu
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?
(*legitimate* rejoins)
At 10:01 21/01/2003 -0600, you wrote:
* Morten Paludan-Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-21
12:40:57 +0100]:
> [11:12:01] *** hane was kicked by Elsene.Be.Eu.undernet.org (Net Rider)
>
> In private she tells me that the server says this when trying to enter:
>
> [11:15:48] (hane): [04
[13:02] [13:01] -Season`d:@#zt- @ @ @ @ hummm better paste me
what is happening
[13:02] [18:04] -BlakJ|Wrk:@#zt- @ @ @ @ [Ops/#zt] so its your
scdrip tthen :P
Forgive my dodgy typing, but it would appear that opnotices are prefixed
with a random number of @'s now?
[13:14] -[Vilhelm]:@#removed-
FWIW this makes it fun to fix Access Controls in bots and stuff like that
which use hosts.. having to /quit to reconnect and get a recognised host is
annoying as hell...
I personally would have liked this feature to be available although it
wouldnt be used often for the most part I guess.
At
[15:44] [23:43] -X- Added ban *usp*!*@* to #somechan at level 74
[15:44] *** X sets mode: +o USP
[15:44] *** X sets mode: -o USP
[15:45] heh
[15:45] *** X sets mode: +o USP
[15:45] *** X sets mode: -o USP
[15:45] X still does that
[15:46] -> *X* lbanlist #somechan *
[15:46] -X- *** Ban List for
#ZT Recently had a security issue caused by an 'interesting' hostname.
theZoMBiE is qqlaw@#!/bin/sh.B-S-D.org was not
Hostnames with ! in them are going to break clients, scripts and Coding are
they not?
Shouldnt these be disallowed?
Ok thanks to R33D33R - Encrypted passwords were the problem.
F:CRYPT_OPER_PASSWORD:FALSE
This fixed the problem.
I had left the original set of F:lines as default (all commented, so all
were set at their defaults).
I presume encrypted passwords is the default setting.
I generated my encrypted
I just finished setting up a new server.. compiled and loaded first time! :)
However Im having issues with the O:lines. Those of you currently in
#coder-com might have seen me mention this.
[11:26] O:*@*:test:blakjak::10
[11:26] so thats my oline
[11:26] i go /oper blakjak test
[11:26] and
BlakJak.. its not like its not
obvious.)
Be a little more careful whom you target with your emails, Brian.
Mark.
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sent: 19 Apr 2002 08:35:08 GMT
>From: "Brian Gilliford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Mark Foster" <[E
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:17:10 -0700
Judging by those headers, trek.sbg.org held onto this message for 2 and a
half hours before forwarding it on?
Whats going on?
At 13:16 19/04/02 +1200, Mark Foster wrote:
>Attacks? If you type /msg x verify it will say if youre log
... verify always works, whether your X info is invisible or not.
One thing I would possibly suggest is having it say 'User is logged in to
X' instead of actually quoting the username.
Mark.
At 23:55 18/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
>You can however, hide yourself a little by doing:
>
>/msg x set i
Attacks? If you type /msg x verify it will say if youre logged in as
a given username.
What difference does it make?
*sigh*
At 20:07 18/04/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Kindly remove the new "feature" that displays one's username in a /whois
>results.
>This is an open invitation to attacks and an inva
/ctcp nick finger
for mirc clients it will show idle time in seconds, unless theyve modified
their CTCP replies via a script or something. :) I use it as my last resort :)
Mark (BlakJak)
At 11:07 16/04/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Guess I should read a bit more on that CFV... that is a really
>ann
We could have non-subbed-members set to send to the moderator instead of
the whole list?
Then at least someone has to approve their postage...
At 13:11 15/03/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Spam is not so easy to reject. I'll try to keep up with filtering better
>though. And HTML, sure if you want me to
Yeah, I had heard something about this, but this more or less answers
Stime's other query to me.
My point was that the UserIP command *is* useful when someone is *spoofing*
a user@host - I use it to verify hostnames etc - But given that Undernet
has not implimented any system allowing a users host
ircU as implimented on Undernet doesnt allow users hosts to be hidden.. so
its not something I can see implimented any time soon, unless usermode +x
becomes prolific?
At 03:23 30/01/2002 +0100, stime wrote:
>Hello,
>I noticed things like /links and /stats are disabled.
>Its a good thing, but...
Oh, then i check the banlist:
[06:09] [#zonefive] McLean.VA.us +b *!*@grsys1.geomath.fr 3d 13h 26m 44s ago
[06:09] [#zonefive] End of banlist (1 bans)
(completely irrelevant ban).
Thus the only ban by the finish was the one BlakSun removed:
[06:08] *** Mode change for #zonefive by BlakSun: -b
Ok, I stand corrected - Hidden and I were discussing the X ban thing online
at the same time as he reported the ban issue, I muddled the two :P
I tried it:
/mode #zonefive + *!~test@test *!~2test2@2test *!~3test3@3test *!~*@*
[06:08] *** Mode change for #zonefive by BlakJak: -bbb *!~3test3@
At 04:05 11/12/01 +0100, nighty wrote:
>Hi,
>
>donc Cc: to people (like me) that answer to questions on the list... if
>they do so, they are subscribed ;P
Its what you get when you use reply-all, if youre a lazy poster. :P
> >On the old X you could, with this version of X you can often easily
I think the point here is that you cant remove the specific ban in X based
on mask, without removing any other ban set in X which masks that ban ...
On the old X you could, with this version of X you can often easily remove
other bans that you might want to leave behind eg:
*!~[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Last I heard we were working on this.. but yeah, USP is still running the
old-x-emulation code, at least for the meantime. I know of a couple of
people whove coded emulation TCL so im sure our brilliant coders will work
their miracles per usual :P
Cheers
BlakJak
UserService Administrator :)
A
Disagree. Why hamper what are often not a problem?
When we start censoring quit messages we have to continue to censor
everything Sheesh, I can think of bigger deals than the length
of quit messages...
Mark/BlakJak
At 17:52 1/10/01 +0200, Bjørn Osdal wrote:
I presume I`m not the
only one on u
I still think an added user should have to approve being finally added
somehow - which would solve this problem.
I nearly wrote essentially what you just did Greg but bit my tongue..
Can I re-request that the coder-com consider reccomending that a notice like
-X- ReBELSucks has attempted to add
I second this; if a channel op is using their position as an op via X from
outside the channel it'd be nice to see where they were authed from !
Whilst i see the logic to the move perhaps this needs to be coupled with
something else - when /msg x adduser #channel - this needs to be
acknowledg
Ive heard of ircd's which do this sort of thing but I *dont* reccomend them.
If you want to be an op in every channel, install some channel services ala
uworld. ?
It'd require you to issue a mode request to a bot, or an oper service.
Mark.
At 09:38 5/09/2001 -0400, Kev wrote:
> > I am
[11:24] -X- Auth: jcar114 [500] BlakJak [100] crispy [100]
[11:24] -X- Auth: jcar114/dess|afk [500] BlakJak/Blak|Work [100]
crispy/DodgyUni [100]
The difference between these two reports - I wasnt in #auckland for the
first one, and i was in the second.
Wouldnt it be useful to see what NICK
At the risk of getting involved in a flame war; I can see 'power hungry'
becoming a fairly subjective term.
If you have serious complaints about the conduct of an oper, logs and
allegations need to go to the admin concerned.
Where the admin is abusive, the data needs to go to one of the other
I feel we're approaching the pedantic here.
Maybe servers should cache MOTD information then ?
Its not like it'd be hard to propogate an update - and the MOTD is
important when looking for bot servers, etc.
Mark.
At 18:51 20/08/2001 +1200, you wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:04:10 +1200 you
[10:59] ./motd paris*
[10:59] Permission Denied: You're not an IRC operator
Any reason why motd was part of the pl14/15 mods?
Remote MOTD would be useful to guests I should think.
Mark (BlakJak)
#x27;re in and what notjust think how much more
>it would take to put the topic for every channel in that too.
>
>correct me if i'm wrong...this is what i remember hearing.
>
>-Dawg/Brian Steil
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But is there any way to get the servers to compare eachothers topics and
refresh them if one is missing on net.burst?
You must have noticed that the topics quite often are seen on one server
and not another after netsplits..
?
As was most eloquently pointed out to me off-list (Thanks Guppy :P) I
neglected to consider information hidden by the clients...
Disregard my attempt at humour ... :/
At 08:49 3/07/2001 +1200, you wrote:
>well NO... we still want to be able to see the IPs of people in channels,
>if not the s
well NO... we still want to be able to see the IPs of people in channels,
if not the server theyre on (all that is hidden right now)
Unless youre really deliberately trying to turn this into
undernet.chat.yahoo.com? :P
PS: Hey Wenny :)
Mark.
At 22:21 2/07/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>might wish
hen deop yourself and change yer
>nick
>
>
>ReBEL
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Mark Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:14 AM
>Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] banned nicknames
>
>
> > Its
Its the same principle as inviting people around bans - except nicks can be
changed on the fly...
Maybe it needs to be forbidden to change nicks whilst in a channel where a
ban masks the nick ?
-.-. --.-
Mark Foster - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager, Intermech Ltd
+64-21-499-368 / +64-9-525-2220
Not even Channel Ops. Only IRC Operators can see true hosts.
Most implimentations of this turn the hostname from:
p34-max1.akl.ihug.co.nz
to
random.things.here.co.nz
Thus bans using *!*ident@*.co.nz still apply and work OK.
This method doesnt actually remove a lot of the ban features we still
Perhaps then set (if not already done) the ability to include a module which
contains those changes?
As opposed to beefing up deployed Undernet ircU with stuff we dont use? :P
- Original Message -
From: "Perry Lorier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "n3tguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTEC
3tguy
-.-. --.-
Mark Foster aka BlakJak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
http://www.blakjak.net
(coming soon)
41 matches
Mail list logo
