Re: [Unity-irc3] My 2 cents

[Jan Krueger]

Evening.

> Exception masks for bans
Well known concept, supported by lots of ircds already. :P
Anyway, useful for sure, I agree on that. Rises another interesting questions
by the way, I'll start another thread for that.

> |_    Ban:     address@hidden (we don't want no help lamerz)
Heh, easy. We're trying to be serious here. ;)


> The bans won't be very different in irc3, if you ask me. Regular
> address@hidden bans should be implemented. I don't know if the
> "?" character is valid in a banmask in irc2, if not, we could implement that
> into irc3... "address@hidden".
"?" is in irc2, yeah. Agree on the rest, though we might want to put in some
partial cloaking of hosts to prevent DoS on users. See thread I'm going to
open.


> I trust
> serveradmins to decide for themselves whether they want a user or not; thus
> leaving the decision at the serveradmin's side -- not some kind of higher
> authority. I think I share this point of view with Pingu.
Sure. There's one problem though - imagine some flooder who takes turns in
getting banned from all individual servers. Until he catches teh-kill
somewhere, he can go on spamming people every time. That's why I made the
suggestion of global bans that only get active when a certain amount of
servers have someone banned.
Anyway, let's open another thread for this as well.


> Why not implement something like an ASN number global ban? Imagine a lamer
> having 500 usable ip's, all with different hostmasks. However, they are all
> belonging to the same ISP. Glining all his ip's/hostmasks would be a
> terrible job -- glining his ISP's ASN number would be pretty easy. Think
> about this thoroughly! Note that this would require some extra
> datatraffic... upon every connection attempt made, the hostmask/ip should be
> looked up in an ASN database.
We could make the software cache bits of the ASN database.
Another thought - most ISPs only have a small amount of IP subnets. For
example, German Telekom has some 217.* and some 80.* IP addresses for their
customers. Wouldn't IP subnet bans be enough for a start?


> Well I guess these are my two cents for the moment... I really think we
> should put down down-to-earth summaries (or even RFC-like documents) to make
> some progress. We are going too indepth on certain things which could be
> done in a way later stage. I think we should focus on the core aspects of
> IRC first, like routing and such.
Absolutely. I'm trying to write something user-friendly about what we're all
doing, see website. And that in-depth thing is something I've been saying all
the time - let's keep everything that's not directly related to the protocol
out for now (except for perhaps discussing whether things are technically
possible/sensible).


> - Jast: would it be possible to archive the messages being posted in the
> irc3-* lists? Preferrably web-based, for later reference.
Check the website. ;)

> - *: Is uuuppzz now officially part of the irc3 project team?
> - *: Is raphidae now officially part of the irc3 project team?
No. No. Official members are listed on our savannah project page.


> My own personal tasklist is to get into the creation of RFC papers. Since
> I'm a bad coder, it would be a good thing to make texta, I figured :p I
> aswell am going to focus on making -summaries- of the discussions we've had
> on both mailinglists and irc, just to get things straight and clear. I made
> a subdomain (http://irc3.digitalcraze.nl) on which I will post these
> summaries. Please do comment/criticise these documents, I don't want to put
> up wrong stuff/not yet decided stuff!
I think it's better to use our website's CVS. Let's keep everything in one
place. If you want, create your own directory and put your stuff in it, or
something.

-- 
regards,
Jan Krüger
http://www.jast-dev.net.tc