Yo! ;)
Hey.. I dont know if this idea for X is already discussed/mentioned/old
or not..
But what about having an option in the 'modinfo' or whatever to edit a
ban without removing it and add it back
Correctly like you want??
Greetz,
Segfault-
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
en again
wensu
"Yeah well BEAM this up *PAL*!"
- Original Message -
From: "Jessy Côté" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2002 5:15 am
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
>
> > > Another thing is: why do you actually use
> > > @.users.u
> Suggestion to reenable /map and /links.
Already done in the trunk. Whether we back-port it to a later .11 release
is another matter...
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Suggestion to reenable /map and /links.
Specifications:
Opers:
- Usual behaviour like now
Users:
- Display only endpoint/client servers (no hubs)
- Do not show the lag between servers (always 0)
- Do not show the amount of hops (always 1)
- Do not show how they are li
> Let's not get carried away here. What we're already doing is hard
> enough; this would just make things orders of magnitude more difficult.
> --
> Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A simple approach(which I am prepared to code at some stage
if no-one has a problem with it) would be to
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Maassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
> Dave, ya right, but there is still an issue within the +x model undernet
> will use, issue i
While giving Undernet helpers some sort of recognition is nice and
deserved, it would also flood help committees with wannabies who will use
their "badges" to abuse, intimidate, or flaunt their supposed leetness.
With the exception of cservice and #zt, most other help venues are open
committee
> Another thing is: why do you actually use
> @.users.undernet.org and not @users.undernet.org
> ? For opers it might become @opers.undernet.org.
>
> Another stupid idea ? No, just think about it, I did, now it's your turn to
> think about it as well...
Undernet usernames are valid domain names,
> > Undernet Channel Serivce = *@.cservice.undernet.org
> > Undernet User Committee = *@.user-com.undernet.org
> > Etc...
> >
> > I think this will be cool too..it's just another idea about that.
>
> Let's not get carried away here. What we're already doing is hard
> enough; this would just mak
> No offense, but User-Com (and Doc-Com, Script-Com, and the other -Com's that
> have in the past existed) aren't in the same "official"-ness realm as opers
> and CService. So maybe it's best to limit the hostnames to opers,
> cs-helpers, cs-admins, and users. Then we eliminate that pesky "is he
> But then you have to have some kind of system to register user-com
> members apart from cservice members... and then you also have to
> consider the issue that some people work in both areas. User-com
> doesn't have any username registration systems... so that'd maybe have
> to be made just to
> Undernet Channel Serivce = *@.cservice.undernet.org
> Undernet User Committee = *@.user-com.undernet.org
> Etc...
>
> I think this will be cool too..it's just another idea about that.
Let's not get carried away here. What we're already doing is hard
enough; this would just make things orders
ROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Valcor
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Ideas
>> > Another thing is: why do you actually use
>> > @.users.undernet.org and not
> @users.undernet.org
>> > ? For opers it might become
>> > Another thing is: why do you actually use
>> > @.users.undernet.org and not
> @users.undernet.org
>> > ? For opers it might become @opers.undernet.org.
>>
>> Either way is acceptable, it's just the way that it was coded when it was
>> submitted.
> Undernet Channel Serivce = *@.cservice.under
> > Another thing is: why do you actually use
> > @.users.undernet.org and not
@users.undernet.org
> > ? For opers it might become @opers.undernet.org.
>
> Either way is acceptable, it's just the way that it was coded when it was
> submitted.
Undernet Channel Serivce = *@.cservice.undernet.org
U
> Dave, ya right, but there is still an issue within the +x model undernet
> will use, issue is a users hosts gets 'hidden' *AFTER* he successfully
> authed with X, so that system is actually kinda useless in my opinion.
Future versions of ircu will hopefully allow a user to auth at login. In
th
Dave, ya right, but there is still an issue within the +x model undernet
will use, issue is a users hosts gets 'hidden' *AFTER* he successfully
authed with X, so that system is actually kinda useless in my opinion.
Reason:
Problem is that users will still be 'nukable' since there IP does not get
> ircu only accepts AC commands from U-lined servers.
Incorrect. Any server can issue an AC command; this is deliberate, as in
future versions, users may be able to log in directly via the server,
rather than having to go through services.
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please wrap your lines when sending email; thank you.)
> Hi, my name is Cristian and i have some ideas. Maybe there are some ppl who t
> old you this but im not sure, so.. :
> My idea is referring to hide users adresses. In the last time Undernet have m
> any many users, and many of them are usi
begin quote from Braden Temme on Mar 31, 2002:
> Will Carlo post the format for the crosstalk between x and ircu on his site?
>
> Braden
>
Look in ircd/m_account.c in ircu, and mod.cservice/LOGINCommand.cc in
GNUWorld. IIRC, the format is:
AC
ircu only accepts AC commands from U-lined ser
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
Will Carlo post the format for the crosstalk between x and ircu on his site?
Braden
--- "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, when you login on X, it will send a command out to the other ircu
> servers to set your username on your nick in the internal users
> database. Ircu would then u
Yes, when you login on X, it will send a command out to the other ircu
servers to set your username on your nick in the internal users
database. Ircu would then use this to create your hidden host. It also
means that if X splits or is restarted, you won't have to login again,
because X will
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
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?
Braden
--- "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When ircu2.10.11 is implemented, we will be able to /mode yournick +x to
When ircu2.10.11 is implemented, we will be able to /mode yournick +x to
change your host to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or something
like that).
The servers themselves have the ability to autolink to their hub server
when they're split. A bot should not be necessary for this :-) It may
take 5-1
Hi, my name is Cristian and i have some ideas. Maybe there are some ppl who told you
this but im not sure, so.. :
My idea is referring to hide users adresses. In the last time Undernet have many many
users, and many of them are using this network just to get hosts to make problems, you
know.. i
28 matches
Mail list logo
