On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:27:55AM -0500, Peter Avalos wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:16:04AM -0500, Adrian Michael Nida wrote: > > <Snip/> > > : I'm guessing you're serious, so I'll mention why this is a risky idea. > > : IRC has chewing-gum authentication and it's almost trivial for a > > : malicious bot to fool a server into ignoring people by pretending to > > : be them, and this can be done in many points*. Basically, the entire > > : utility of the logging bot is broken because it allows virtually > > : unauthenticated modifications to its behavior. Not to mention the > > : confusion that arises if an entire participant in a conversation has > > : their messages removed. > > <Snip/> > > > > I agree here. I'd be willing to perform some s/USERNAME/ANONYMOUS/g magic > > in the messages. That way, the message would be preserved, but it can't be > > tracked back to a given user. > > > > When I read the original message I thought it was a joke. Now that we're > getting serious, could we please stop? The idea of obscuring an IRC log > is preposterous. IRC isn't authenticated, and the log is only going to > show nicknames. What the point of obscurity? My vote is just leave it > as is.
To be honest, I was halfway serious. I generally don't hide my identity when on irc because I don't go on to just 'hang out', but I do like to monitor the #dragonflybsd channel. The easy solution for me is to just mask myself from now on, but the main point of suggesting that people be able to opt out of the log is that I don't want my comments logged as the real me if there is no real benefit. I thought the log of the last 1000 lines was cool because it allowed me to catch up, but I don't know why we need a historical archive of chat sessions. Again, I am going to do what I need to on my end, so it is really a moot issue for me now anyway. Cheers.
