Re: [Coder-Com] usermode +x hostmasking and chanserv X bot bans

2003-08-20 Thread stoney`
Hi, Cservice frowns upon users having multiple usernames. If you suspect someone of using multiple usernames, stop by #cservice to report the infraction. stoney` At 09:58 AM 8/20/2003 +0200, you wrote: Jay Gairson wrote: It may be that this is not an X request so much as a server request (direc

Re: [Coder-Com] usermode +x hostmasking and chanserv X bot bans

2003-08-20 Thread Jay Gairson
Hmm... Ok. First -- thank you everyone who has replied. Isomer/stoney`/Richard/Kev -- and whoever else replies after this of course. Some response to Kev inline. On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 20:28, Kev wrote: > X is able to see through this mask, always, because of the way it's > connected to the net

Re: [Coder-Com] usermode +x hostmasking and chanserv X bot bans

2003-08-20 Thread Isomer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Also note, by the way, that bans on the user's real host mask are also > effective even when the user is +x. although for some reason X doesn't enforce these bans - -- No evil can happen to a good man. -- Plato -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Versio

Re: [Coder-Com] usermode +x hostmasking and chanserv X bot bans

2003-08-20 Thread Kev
> My request is that X and W be allowed to see through this mask, always. X is able to see through this mask, always, because of the way it's connected to the network. However, we have to take special care with X to prevent it from revealing the user's true mask. > If user is cloaked and ban is

[Coder-Com] Your support request: Re: Wicked screensaver

2003-08-20 Thread support
You have received this message because the subject field of your recent email request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not contain a unique Problem Tracking Number (PTN). To obtain a PTN you will need to submit your support request through the Plesk Online Server Support form at https://www.plesk.com/s

[Coder-Com] virus found in sent message "Re: That movie"

2003-08-20 Thread System Anti-Virus Administrator
Attention: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A virus was found in an Email message you sent. This Email scanner intercepted it and stopped the entire message reaching its destination. The virus was reported to be: W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please update your virus scanner or contact your IT support personn

[Coder-Com] RAV AntiVirus scan results

2003-08-20 Thread RAV AntiVirus
--- This e-mail is generated by the mc.rnc.ro mail server to warn you that the e-mail sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is infected with virus: Win32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please contact your system administrator for further information. If you are the sender: --

[Coder-Com] Warning: antivirus system report

2003-08-20 Thread Mail Delivery Subsystem
Warning: antivirus system report The following message has been detected by the antivirus system The antivirus module has responded with the following error code: 6

[Coder-Com] Automated reply from serverspy@mail.serverspy.net

2003-08-20 Thread serverspy
Hi, We have recieved your email. Thanks for your feed back. We can not guarentee we will reply to your email but rest assure that we have at least read it! The ServerSpy . Net team!

[Coder-Com] BANNED FILENAME (thank_you.pif, .exe) IN YOUR MAIL

2003-08-20 Thread amavisd-new
BANNED FILENAME ALERT Our virus checker found banned filenames: thank_you.pif, .exe in your email to the following recipient: -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery of the email was stopped! Please check your system for viruses, or ask your system administrator to do so. For your reference, here are

[Coder-Com] Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed

2003-08-20 Thread Internet on Line Mail Delivery
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mta-in1 (mta-in1 [192.168.30.12]) by ims-1.iol.cz (Internet on Line ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (original mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]); Wed,

Re: [Coder-Com] usermode +x hostmasking and chanserv X bot bans

2003-08-20 Thread Blackwell
Jay Gairson wrote: It may be that this is not an X request so much as a server request (direct me to the right mailing list if this is the wrong one) that has bans see through hostmasks, always -- but if set on a cloaked hostmask it only bans the cloaking --- X/W would be required for banning true