The hidden +x host was created with a reason: To protect users and Undernet staff. If I run a ddos/botchan, and an oper walks in to gline them, or a cservice admin join and removes my X bot, I really think I shouldn't be able to see his IP, even if I'm a chanop.
Spike Op woensdag 1 januari 2003 20:28, schreef Alocin: > About the *.user.undernet.org and the fact that it is nice to protect > yourself against attacks, it is also a pain for channel ops to find out who > is doing what and to find out to whom they should complain if they want to > inform an ISP (...) > > The fact that a ban is still usefull for banning a person even if they > masquerade their host is nice... if you can find that true host! And with > the fact that flooders will register 30 false login it is a real pain to > live with ... > > Anyway, my point is: > > why not put a privilege on the whois request done by a op on a user on his > channel? > > It would reduce the abuse on multiregistering because there would be many > less use for it AND it would let users act upon flooders if they join the > channel where they are op by maybe contacting the ISP (...) > > The fact that a person decide to join a channel is still his own choice, so > it will not impact on the desire to protect a user privacy or security... > If they join a channel they accept to obey by the rules of the channel and > to allow acces to their true host to the ops, nothing bad in that. > > So, to be clear, what i am suggesting is: > > For everyone, the whois of Someone would still look like > > SomeUser is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * something > SomeUser on #chan1 #chan2 > SomeUser using *.undernet.org The Undernet Underworld > SomeUser End of /WHOIS list. > > Except for ops on #chan1 or #chan2 that would see: > > SomeUser is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * something > SomeUser on #chan1 #chan2 > SomeUser using *.undernet.org The Undernet Underworld > SomeUser End of /WHOIS list. > > > I will also add that this would not compromise CPU usage very much... Or if > this is something you absolutly want to avoid, use the same principle that > was use for cprivmsg... i dislike the idea of having to use a new command, > but even that would at least help me free the channels where i am op of > those > «kiddies-that-didn't-got-their-x-box-for-christmas-so-the-world-must-suffer >» type of users... > > > Tank you for your interest.. reply/suggestions welcome :o) > > > - Alocin > > > p.s.: There is other possibilities, like adding a 'join comment' stating > the host to the ops only... (there is already a 'part comment' so the > syntax is already in place) and that would eventualy reduce the need for > client to use secondary commands to generate an internal user list. Or/and > the WHO could be modified in the same way...
