Comments?
stoney`
At 08:37 PM 1/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
You mean like #support on GamesNET or #feds on QuakeNet? That kinda thing? Py Fivestones wrote:The question still remains: How can a user complain to a lamer's ISP? I think there's a need to have something in place to allow users to report abuse to ISPs. Currently the only thing a user can do is email abuse@ (after the fact) or track down an IRCop who may or may not decide to join a channel to help out. It would be a good thing <tm> if there was a "help" channel where users could report clones, abusive users etc. that hide behind a hidden host (or several hidden hosts).
stoney`
At 07:30 AM 1/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
But a channel op could be an attacker too! Also...if we're gonna stop multiregistering we could possibly just say only 3-5 names per IP address.
Also..Chanops could possibly talk to an IRCop and only the IRCop could find out the real hostmask..Chanops would never know it. IRCops would go into the channel, the Chanop would op him, and the IRCop would put the ban on the flooder.
- Necromncr
Alocin wrote:
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...
Py Fivestones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Py Fivestones (stoney` on IRC)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________
Undernet user committee response team
{[EMAIL PROTECTED]}
#userguide - Undernet users helping users
http://www.user-com.undernet.org
