Hi Sofie
a simple tcl script can make your bot +x ...
good old Algol wrote a auto login to X/W and it's easily done to add a line
in to auto +x after that.
- wensu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 200
> 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
-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
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?
net wrote:
> No, it's made to make sure you don't just set +x and evade the ban for your
> original host.
>
> Cheers,
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, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: [Coder-Com]
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
stoney,
I'm all in favour of this idea. I think it would be very helpful. I'm not
a newbie, but I use the search command when I help someone find a channel
they're looking for, if I am unable to, or anyone else, is unable to help
them in the current channel.
-Mike
Empus
> 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
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 Unde
> 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..
[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
[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
> 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
