> >Then of course you can do:
> > *!*@*.??
> > *!*@*.com
> > *!*@*.net
> > *!*@*.org
> > *!*@*.info
>
> I think is enough to add something only for host/IP.
> If the banned
> host/IP doesn't contain a character a-z, A-Z or a
> digit 0-9 then the
> banmask to be a wrong one. A ban on *!*@*.c* won't
Hi Cosmin,
On Sat, 18 May 2002 01:44:06 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
> I agree with you but the passwords still can be
> stolen. Mine was stolen
> with the help of Sub7 virus... The result was a ban on
> *!*@*.* on all
> the channels I had access. And now I'm a bad guy in
> those channels...
> Course
Hello.
Alexander wrote:
>Nice idea, but there is one problem. If you have
looked at the
>mailingarchive you would see this problem has been
discussed before
>and noone seems to care about it. Sounds harsch and
is a personal
>opinion. But likely to be a fact.
Sorry... I'm new in the mailing list
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
> > My proposal is to add a new channel setting (level
> > 500). For example FULLBAN (OFF or ON) which allow (or
> > not) users to set bans on *.* . I guess is a good
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
> banning *!*@* has some advantages.
>
> When you ban *!*@* from a channel, only voiced and opped people will be
able
> to talk, to change their nicks, and no one wi
,
>
>
>Hidden
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
>
>
> > I agree The ability to ban *!*@* s
- Original Message -
From: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
> I agree The ability to ban *!*@* should be either (a) limited to
> cservice staff only, or
Regarding *!*@*.* see Isomer's email. There IS enough security.
Regarding what to do when your username is hacked on undernet...
First, go to http://cservice.undernet.org/live/ login (if you still can) and
change your password, if you cannot login, use forgotten password (link both
in side bar a
I agree The ability to ban *!*@* should be either (a) limited to
cservice staff only, or (b) blocked completely to everyone.
In my opinion, 9 times out of 10, a *!*@* ban is considered abusive and
probably used to maliciously lock up the channel.
I don't really see a need to allow anyone to b
> My proposal is to add a new channel setting (level
> 500). For example FULLBAN (OFF or ON) which allow (or
> not) users to set bans on *.* . I guess is a good
> ideea... 10x & please excuse my english.
>
How does the IRC daemon know if a ban is a full ban?
*!*@*
*!*@*.*
*!*@*.???
*!~*@
2002-05-17 14:50:20, skrev Cosmin Marcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hello.
>
>Almost everybody knows that if you have sufficient
>access in a channel to set a ban through X and you set
>that ban on *!*@*.* X will kick all users from that
>channel. You need access level >= ban level to remove
>it. The p
Hello Cosmin,
Friday, May 17, 2002, 2:50:20 PM, you wrote:
CM> Hello.
CM> Almost everybody knows that if you have sufficient
CM> access in a channel to set a ban through X and you set
CM> that ban on *!*@*.* X will kick all users from that
CM> channel. You need access level >= ban level to remo
Hello.
Almost everybody knows that if you have sufficient
access in a channel to set a ban through X and you set
that ban on *!*@*.* X will kick all users from that
channel. You need access level >= ban level to remove
it. The problem is that the username's password can be
stolen. So, with a stol
13 matches
Mail list logo
