Please do NOT send HTML messages to this list
Thanks
Mathieu René
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
De la part de éL NìçoS
Envoyé : 29 avril, 2002 16:50
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : [Coder-Com] Banlist
Coders,
I also have a sugges
on 30/4/02 08:50, éL NìçoS at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Coders,
>
> I also have a suggestion. Large channels often deal with floods. Most off
> those large channels prefer to put two or three eggdrops online to protect
> themselves against the floodhosts. On most off these channels the banlis
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> 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
> >> 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 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
> 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
>Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:27:19 +0100
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: nighty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] banlist
>
>At 10:35 21/02/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > the two most recent bans (e.g. number 30 and 31) ar
> Hi, i'm not sure if it is a bug or something.. but on one chan he have
> 31 bans set`:
This can typically happen during splits or lag. The server only limits
the number of bans local users can set--it doesn't limit bans set by a
remote server.
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
the two most recent bans (e.g. number 30 and 31) are at the end of your list,
you can notice they were not set by a user, but by the server ...
actually, as far as i know, if a server resets bans after a netsplit,
it doesnt bother about how much bans you already have thus being able to
over
X actually respects the 30 maxbans limit, as it is set the same on every
server, the following 2 were set by a server, this usually only happens at
net.join, where (as previously said by someone else) a server will not
adhere to the 30 maxbans.
>> :Stockholm.SE.eu.Undernet.org 367 KeK|PoSlA #char
It is possible to have more than MAXBANS in a channel. Usually this
occures from a server or a service initiating the ban; servers ignore the
MAXBAN value in this case.
-- notnet
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, denisegamache wrote:
> Hi, i'm not sure if it is a bug or something.. but on one chan he have
- Original Message -
From: "denisegamache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: [Coder-Com] banlist
> Hi, i'm not sure if it is a bug or something.. but on one chan he have
> 31 bans set`:
> [...]
> :Stockholm.SE.eu.Undernet.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
