This person below has some interesting points. Can someone reply to their email? Thanks,
stoney`
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: "VamPyro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [User-Com] consistency. Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:32:56 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.29 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Undernet-List: user-com X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Im not sure this is the right place to write, but the website did say that if you had a suggestion to write here. My suggestion is a little consistency among the servers. If you want to know what i mean, just check out the raw 005 reply on each server. Servers have different maxchans and maxbans. Being an owner of a bot as well as someone who writes my own script, this is annoying.
"How many bans before I should delete a ban because I cannot add another? well that depends on the server I am on."
what kind of reply is that? I can understand if the server mattered because of what network I was on, but I am refering to Undernet servers only here.
"How many channels can my bot be in? well that depends on the server I set it to connect to."
Ok that is just wrong in many ways. If I want my bot in 21 channels, I have to not only check motds for bot policies but also check to see if it can join 21 channels there, because on some servers it can join as many as 35 channels.
These settings do make a difference to the performance of keeping a channel secure. If my script sees this server can hold 45 bans in a channel, then it would never notice that the reason a bot on another server cannot ban someone is because they only have 30 bans there. If I jump my bot to a server that only supports 20 channels, then some channel is going to simply return a bunch of errors because it cannot join a channel.
Currently, I have scripts and bots programmed to only care about the least common denominator, (30 bans, and my bot is still under the old limit of 10 chans so no worries there) but this seems like a bad policy. While being a safe policy, it is still a bad one. If a feature is available, why not make use of it to its fullest potential? If it cannot be used in this way, then lower the feature to what can be consistently used. If some servers are going to only allow 30 bans, all servers on the same network should only support 30, or the few servers should be changed to use 45 like the rest.
Consistency is needed to properly control a busy channel such as the ones I partake in where the banlist fills constantly. I would love to make my settings by looking at one server rather than having to jump to them all to get a /version reply and use the lowest number. Then again, I am jumping to them all anyways to read the motd to discover what servers have what bot policies anyways, since there is no central site or method (or even being able to /motd to other servers while connected to the one like I used to) so I guess I can just check the settings while Im at it eh?
If this is not the place I should have emailed with this complaint, then let me apologize to the poor soul stuck reading this, and I humbly ask that you forward it to the appropriate people. Thanks for letting me vent. lol
-VamPyro
--
For in this world, everything exists. Anything can happen at any time.. and everything does happen all the time.
Close the world. txEn eht nepO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
