w c m t a
It's Unbeleivable what goes inside.
http://200.206.184.201:8040/11/cgi/spind.pl?h=dm_hs.dat&d=B_SM_HF&p=1a&lah=fu8s
q g j a k
http://200.206.184.201:8040/11/r2.html
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:30:14AM +0200, bas wrote:
> >
> > (plus do you want to give a hacker the ability to /kill you if they
> > happen to get your username and password?)
> >
> they can only do that once.
> after that, they changed the password, or you know your account is hacked and you
> ch
March 2003 2:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Coder-Com] +x
Good afternoon all,
Got a little question about the +x mode.
It seems that some people are not able to log into the x mode or at least
set it on there Ip or whatever you may call it.
We (some op's in a channel) are having a fr
> Got a little question about the +x mode.
> It seems that some people are not able to log into the x mode or at least set
> it on there Ip or whatever you may call it.
Server admins are very strongly encouraged to have this user mode set to
on, but it is not a requirement yet. This means that i
Hi, I have put my egg with +x
This is in my eggdrop.conf
# script to run (if any) when first connecting to a server
set init-server { putserv "MODE $botnick +ix-ws" }
And I have made a tcl script that ident my egg to X if is not oped in
chan that he have access.
I admit that this script is not
Good afternoon all,
Got a little question about the +x mode.
It seems that some people are not able to log into the x mode or at least set it on
there Ip or whatever you may call it.
We (some op's in a channel) are having a friendly bot in there who helps us out to
keep the channel clean from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:33:45PM +0100, Chris Crowther wrote:
> > 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 ;)
> >
> > Thoug
* Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-10-17 23:22:56 +0200]:
> What's this?
>
> gpg: Signature made Thu 17 Oct 2002 08:33:47 PM CEST using DSA key ID 0C93FE11
> gpg: requesting key 0C93FE11 from wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net ...
> gpg: key 0C93FE11: public key imported
> gpg: key E5759045: secret key withou
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:33:45PM +0100, Chris Crowther wrote:
> 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
-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
- Original Message -
From: "Kev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Larry Kaeto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
> > If i ban a real ip, then if he/she does
-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
they liked
the only soloution i can see to this is to make e-mail addresses visible and
then have x enforce bans against them
From: Entrope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
Date: 16 Oct 2002 16:25:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: f
> If i ban a real ip, then if he/she does +x usermode, i would expect
> undernet to know they are effectively the same host ... so no one can
> evade a ban.
Correct.
> however if i banned a +x host , and then the real ip showed up in the
> banlist instead of the +x host, i think this is not g
al ip address if
they were determined to do so.
"what man does, man can undo"
regards
wensu
" I can walk on water, but I stagger on alcohol. "
- Original Message -
From: "net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:20 am
Subject:
James Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sounds like a way to still find out people's hosts.. Maybe not
> always doable but it would work in theory. Assuming everyone can
> only get one username, why have that in there?
If you want to try to ban *!*@*.isp1 (through ispN) and kick a user t
From: "James Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Cosmin Marcu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
> Sounds like a way to still fi
inal host.
>
> Cheers,
> notnet
> Developer, Astrolink IRC Network
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cosmin Marcu"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:59 PM
> Subject: [Coder-Com] +x mode (bug?)
>
>
>
> >Hello.
> >Today I
No, it's made to make sure you don't just set +x and evade the ban for your
original host.
Cheers,
notnet
Developer, Astrolink IRC Network
- Original Message -
From: "Cosmin Marcu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16,
Hello.
Today I found somenthing strange with the +x mode.
After logging in to X and seting +x mode I tried to
join a channel on which my real hostname was banned.
The strange thing is that I couldn't join even if I
had that username.users.undernet.org hostname.
Is this a bug?
JL`
___
[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
Hi there,
I just joined a channel (#irc_info) while authed to X:
[18:48] -X- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is logged in as Hidden
[18:47] -X- USER: Hidden ACCESS: 350 LU
[18:47] -X- CHANNEL: #irc_info -- AUTOMODE: OP
[18:47] -X- LAST SEEN: 0 days, 00:02:21 ago.
[18:47] -X- End of access list
X is suppose t
Scenario:
X is parted from a channel (/msg x part )
A user joins that channel, who matches X's banlist for the channel
X rejoins the channel (/msg x join )
nothing happens. the user is still there.
Does X not ban these users when it rejoins (ie. reads the channel banlist),
on purpose? Is this a
Py Fivestones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/04/2002 07:13:39:
> Hi,
> Is it possible to add parameters to the /msg x search feature? As
it
> is now, X will not output more than 10 hits. This limit makes the
feature
> self defeating in a way because newbies are the most likely ones to use
-Mike
Empus@IRC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Py Fivestones
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Coder-Com] X search feature
Hi,
Is it possible to add parameters to the /msg x search feature? As it
Hi,
Is it possible to add parameters to the /msg x search feature? As it
is now, X will not output more than 10 hits. This limit makes the feature
self defeating in a way because newbies are the most likely ones to use the
channel search. I tried /msg x search help, and also search undernet,
whenever i use /msg x access #chan user (+ all the
other options of the command) i get this reply
-X- Unable to retrieve response. Please contact a
cservice administrator.
> 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 illegal.. I don't =
> know, I just heard that fro
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
Hi!
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 illegal..
I don't know, I just heard that from som
Gnuworld is published under GNU General Public License (GPL) and free of use
Marcc-
- Original Message -
From: Christian Jonassen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:39 PM
Subject: [Coder-Com] X
Hi!
Can we please get permission to have X/CMaster that is on
Hi!
Can we please get permission to have X/CMaster that
is on Undernet? We have downloaded the codes and compiled it.
PartyNet has it!
SnowKing. Owner of #IRCIsland on Undernet.
Official RECNet administrator. ( /server recnet.d2g.com
)
> Hi Undernet Coders!
> Is the source on http://gnuworld.sourceforge.net the source to X that =
> Undernet is using?=20
> Leon` said something about the new codes there... or?
> And are we allowed to use X on our network? (RECNet)
> We have some old channel service there now, GWorld or something..
Hi Undernet Coders!
Is the source on http://gnuworld.sourceforge.net the
source to X that Undernet is using?
Leon` said something about the new codes there...
or?
And are we allowed to use X on our network?
(RECNet)
We have some old channel service there now, GWorld
or something It's ju
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/02/2002 20:21:39:
> First I banned in #cyprus4us the user schumy^*!*@* and i parted X
> as the log shows. The ban wasnt in X's banlist
>
> >x< part #cyprus4us
> <-- X ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has left #cyprus4us (At the request
> of n3tguy)
> efie snif
> >x< join #cyprus
First I banned in #cyprus4us the user schumy^*!*@* and i parted X
as the log shows. The ban wasnt in X's banlist
>x< part #cyprus4us
<-- X ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has left #cyprus4us (At the request
of n3tguy)
efie snif
>x< join #cyprus4us
--> X ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #cyprus4us
>x< unban #c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/09/2001 13:52:39:
> hi
>could this be a bug ?i have 498 access in the channel and the ban was
> 499.
> I tried to remove, knowing it couldnt do it, so show the person that i
could
> remove it and got this
>
> X([EMAIL PROTECTED])- You have insufficient access to
hi
could this be a bug ?i have 498 access in the channel and the ban was
499.
I tried to remove, knowing it couldnt do it, so show the person that i could
remove it and got this
X([EMAIL PROTECTED])- You have insufficient access to remove the ban
*!*natalie@* from #bournemouth's database
úúú (
> There is one slight difference between a whois and a whowas. If
> you look at the snippet from mIRC, it says X *is*, not X was.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but numerics can be transmuted by clients that
wish to do so, so I was simply brainstorming all possibilities.
> Hence, X was online. While
Kev,
There is one slight difference between a whois and a whowas. If
you look at the snippet from mIRC, it says X *is*, not X was.
Hence, X was online. While X may have just split off then, it's
not likely. Just wanted to point that out. -- Jonathan
BTW, AFAIK, mIRC does NOT turn /whois into
> [16:03] -> X is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * For help type: /msg X showcommands
> X using *.undernet.org The Undernet Underworld
> x End of /WHOIS list.
> -
> [16:03] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* login blah blah
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] No such nick
> -
> -> [x] PING
> -
> x No such nic
[16:03] -> X is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * For help type: /msg X showcommands
X using *.undernet.org The Undernet Underworld
x End of /WHOIS list.
-
[16:03] -> *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* login blah blah
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] No such nick
-
-> [x] PING
-
x No such nick
Why does a /whois X
43 matches
Mail list logo
