[Coder-Com] good idea!
Warning Unable to process data: multipart/mixed;boundary="=_NextPart_000_00A5_28C84C5C.E1835D31"
[Coder-Com] .diff files
i hope this comes out in plain text, sorry if it doesnt how do i generate a .diff file from the ircu 2.10.11 source i have modified, so that i can have a seperate patch file for patching into furture releases/patch levels etc _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [Coder-Com] .diff files
> i hope this comes out in plain text, sorry if it doesnt It did; thank you for your consideration :) > how do i generate a .diff file from the ircu 2.10.11 source i have modified, > so that i can have a seperate patch file for patching into furture > releases/patch levels etc The easiest way, if you checked it out of CVS, is to use the "cvs diff" command. Type "cvs -H diff" for a summary of the options, but I tend to use "cvs diff -uN"--the "-u" gives you unified format, and the "-N" includes files added by "cvs add" but that haven't yet been committed. If you did have to add a file, there may be a problem, but if you just modified existing files, this'll be sufficient. Note that you should execute the above indicated CVS commands from inside the top level directory of the source tree. HTH... -- Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Coder-Com] Re: IRCTools.com: GNUWorld
Hello undernet, Saturday, May 18, 2002, 3:10:39 PM, you wrote: ucc> 10mb (much more when compiled!) ucc> Services as used on undernet and a few other networks ucc> (by the way, could you make a seperate 'services' category? please?) ucc> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/gnuworld did you send this? and, btw, i have a separate category already. -- Best regards, cyberacidmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
Actually, the server can check against all the users on the server and if a ban matches a certain number of users, it can disallow the ban. Just a suggestion. - Original Message - From: "Hidden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > banning *!*@* has some advantages. > > When you ban *!*@* from a channel, only voiced and opped people will be able > to talk, to change their nicks, and no one will be able to join. > > In chans like #class, it's sometimes useful to have that ban enabled. > > Anyway, if someone wishes to lock a chan, he can +sntmilk and kick everyone. > Theres no need to remove the possibility to ban *!*@*. It's up to the > manager to choose his ops. And like Isomer said, it's hard to determine what > is too wide. > > I think we should just forget about making changes on banning *!*@*. > > regards, > > > Hidden > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > > > > I agree The ability to ban *!*@* should be either (a) limited to > > cservice staff only, or (b) blocked completely to everyone. > > In my opinion, 9 times out of 10, a *!*@* ban is considered abusive and > > probably used to maliciously lock up the channel. > > I don't really see a need to allow anyone to ban *!*@*, so I believe it > > should be limited to cservice staff only or totally blocked to everybody. > > But, leave the ability to quickly clear the X banlist by unbanning *!*@*. > > > > > > > > Nice idea, but there is one problem. If you have looked at the > > > mailingarchive you would see this problem has been discussed before > > > and noone seems to care about it. Sounds harsch and is a personal > > > opinion. But likely to be a fact. > > > Stolen usernames are considered a lack of security on the clients side > > > where the user has not put enough efforts into securing his data. Thus > > > in case of a compromised client the client is on his own and needs to > > > act damn quickly in immediately mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > > The problem that accompanies it that this mailbox receives massive > > > amounts of mail, so before they read it could take a couple of days. > > > > > > My opinion is to completly remove the option to be able to use *!*@* > > > as kick/ban mask. (Run: you stated you would use it to clean up your > > banlist, so it > > > would only be needed to UNBAN, no need to use it for BAN/KICK in this > > > matter) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Alexandermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
Ack! you and Isomer killed another thread :P Once again a thread here was dealt with "professional" and served to teach the less enlightened. You guys are taking all the fun out of flaming :P stoney` At 08:33 PM 5/17/2002 -0400, you wrote: >banning *!*@* has some advantages. > >When you ban *!*@* from a channel, only voiced and opped people will be able >to talk, to change their nicks, and no one will be able to join. > >In chans like #class, it's sometimes useful to have that ban enabled. > >Anyway, if someone wishes to lock a chan, he can +sntmilk and kick everyone. >Theres no need to remove the possibility to ban *!*@*. It's up to the >manager to choose his ops. And like Isomer said, it's hard to determine what >is too wide. > >I think we should just forget about making changes on banning *!*@*. > >regards, > > >Hidden > >- Original Message - >From: "Dave C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:16 PM >Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > > > > I agree The ability to ban *!*@* should be either (a) limited to > > cservice staff only, or (b) blocked completely to everyone. > > In my opinion, 9 times out of 10, a *!*@* ban is considered abusive and > > probably used to maliciously lock up the channel. > > I don't really see a need to allow anyone to ban *!*@*, so I believe it > > should be limited to cservice staff only or totally blocked to everybody. > > But, leave the ability to quickly clear the X banlist by unbanning *!*@*. > > > > > > > > Nice idea, but there is one problem. If you have looked at the > > > mailingarchive you would see this problem has been discussed before > > > and noone seems to care about it. Sounds harsch and is a personal > > > opinion. But likely to be a fact. > > > Stolen usernames are considered a lack of security on the clients side > > > where the user has not put enough efforts into securing his data. Thus > > > in case of a compromised client the client is on his own and needs to > > > act damn quickly in immediately mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > > The problem that accompanies it that this mailbox receives massive > > > amounts of mail, so before they read it could take a couple of days. > > > > > > My opinion is to completly remove the option to be able to use *!*@* > > > as kick/ban mask. (Run: you stated you would use it to clean up your > > banlist, so it > > > would only be needed to UNBAN, no need to use it for BAN/KICK in this > > > matter) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Alexandermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Py Fivestones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
Maube X could check a set ban to see how many people it matches and remove it if it matches more than a set number of users. (maybe even a percentage) - Original Message - From: "Isomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cosmin Marcu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal > > My proposal is to add a new channel setting (level > > 500). For example FULLBAN (OFF or ON) which allow (or > > not) users to set bans on *.* . I guess is a good > > ideea... 10x & please excuse my english. > > > > How does the IRC daemon know if a ban is a full ban? > > *!*@* > *!*@*.* > *!*@*.??? > *!~*@* > *!*@?*.???* > > Then of course you can do: > *!*@*.?? > *!*@*.com > *!*@*.net > *!*@*.org > *!*@*.info > etc > > or, perhaps "a*!*@*", "b*!*@*" they still ban everyone. How do you > know if a ban is too wide? > > -- > Cahn's Axiom: When all else fails, read the instructions. >
Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
Hello. Alexander wrote: >Nice idea, but there is one problem. If you have looked at the >mailingarchive you would see this problem has been discussed before >and noone seems to care about it. Sounds harsch and is a personal >opinion. But likely to be a fact. Sorry... I'm new in the mailing list (1 week). I didn't knew you already discussed this problem. Snatcher wrote: >As you login you will, as you already know, be notified on NEVER to >give out your password. >Those who does it, doesn't really pay attention to what the undernet cs >has to say about username/channel security. I agree with you but the passwords still can be stolen. Mine was stolen with the help of Sub7 virus... The result was a ban on *!*@*.* on all the channels I had access. And now I'm a bad guy in those channels... Course is my mistake... Don't login if you don't know that the computer is clean... But how many users know if the computer is clean? Isomer wrote: >How does the IRC daemon know if a ban is a full ban? > > *!*@* > *!*@*.* > *!*@*.??? > *!~*@* > *!*@?*.???* > >Then of course you can do: > *!*@*.?? > *!*@*.com > *!*@*.net > *!*@*.org > *!*@*.info I think is enough to add something only for host/IP. If the banned host/IP doesn't contain a character a-z, A-Z or a digit 0-9 then the banmask to be a wrong one. A ban on *!*@*.c* won't make X to kick all users in that channel (only if all of them have a "c" in their hostname). I think is a good ideea UNBAN to remain the same (to remove *!*@*) 10x. Best regards, JL` __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Re: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
Hi Cosmin, On Sat, 18 May 2002 01:44:06 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > I agree with you but the passwords still can be > stolen. Mine was stolen > with the help of Sub7 virus... The result was a ban on > *!*@*.* on all > the channels I had access. And now I'm a bad guy in > those channels... > Course is my mistake... Don't login if you don't know > that the computer > is clean... But how many users know if the computer is > clean? Sub7 is an old trojan. I'm surprised a virus scanner didn't pick it up. With the number of viruses flying about today hitting windows, not running a virus scanner is begging for infection ;) There are even plenty of free online scanners like http://housecall.antivirus.com (Trend). > I think is enough to add something only for host/IP. > If the banned > host/IP doesn't contain a character a-z, A-Z or a > digit 0-9 then the > banmask to be a wrong one. A ban on *!*@*.c* won't > make X to kick all > users in that channel (only if all of them have a "c" > in their hostname). Even in that case, the user can still set a ban on *@*c* or *@*n* or *@*o* and get a majority of the domains quickly. (Anything containing c, n, o like net, com, org, co). That ban will also match a lot more than just the ends. I'm still not sure if that'd still b e a suitable solution. -- Valcor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: [Coder-Com] level 500 command proposal
> >Then of course you can do: > > *!*@*.?? > > *!*@*.com > > *!*@*.net > > *!*@*.org > > *!*@*.info > > I think is enough to add something only for host/IP. > If the banned > host/IP doesn't contain a character a-z, A-Z or a > digit 0-9 then the > banmask to be a wrong one. A ban on *!*@*.c* won't > make X to kick all > users in that channel (only if all of them have a "c" > in their hostname). Well, i'm not sure many persons on a channel would still be there if you ban *!*@*e* from X ;-p To the others... May i suggest that if you intend to continue this discussion, at least specify if you're talking about a ban trough X or as a channel mode, it's very funny to see so many persons arguing but not talking of the same thing at all ;-p - Alocin
