> Hi, I would like to know if you have ever planified to had half-op
> support to Undernet ircd, i'm sure this can be a great thing,
> specialy with x. And made it avaible to people with an access >
> than 75. With the half-op status user with access 75 & + can do the
> samething that they already
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Rons>
>>
>>
>> > Is there some kind of Spam/DOS-prevention that could cause this
>> > behaviour?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, ircu contains client connection throtte code, which disallows
> fast
>> multiple connections from the same ip address. This is to protect
>
> You're missing another ":" it should be
> H:*.*::H36.PreProd.PartyNet.Org
>
Ys but it'd be neater if the error happens without crash...
> Thank you very much for this patch. Unfortunately, we're trying to
> end-of- life the u2.10.10-series (though we're still having
> problems getting the u2.10.11-series stable). If we do generate
> another u2.10.10 release, we'll make sure this patch gets in. By
> the way, I checked u2.10.11 t
>> The P10 protocol as i know it,
>> SENDERNUM B #channel TS +modes users :%bans
>> doesn't have timestamps for the bans
>>
>
> Like all channel modes, it uses the TS of the channel, there aren't
> TS's on individual modes, they are just "merged".
>
i know the TS isn't the TS of the mode... but wh
> i guess that those bans were actually *originally* set prior to any
> other BUT ... when you *see* a server SET bans .. it doesn really
> set them at the present moment like if a user did, it is just
> resynchronizing with the list that server has on its side .. I
> guess it just pass around the
i sent a reply about banlists to nighty while i wanted to send it to
the list. i usually make the kind of errors. maybe nighty can reply it
to the list for me.
