/stats prudegyal wrote:getting help in chanfix is hard enough, let alone a ircop opin ppl in chans :!:
/msg active oper
problem solved
Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators
i've seen 2-3 operspys done in the past few months, and every time there were 2-3 other opers instantly saying "why does that look like a drone" (all were drones except for one where one oper was playing a joke on another oper in a drone hunting channel)prefect wrote:If you believe this yourself, I call you naive. You're saying opers don't get jealous? Drunk? Pissed off? You're saying that there will be no abusive operspying ever?
We still don't have services, which is a good thing. Except for the possibility that chanfix might go down for some reason and there's no backup(*), chanfix is totally 100%cool in my book. But chanfix has had three hundred threads already and don't need another one, so I'll leave it at that.Jepp wrote:even though i don't mind them, i voted that we shouldn't have services at all. i have always like EFNet the way it is, and when i started on this network it never had services, i guess that's why i picked it. if it was to have other services you might as well merge with DALNet or some other network like that :?
Yea, people get high hell questioned when they do an operspy on a nick that dosent look like a drone.munky wrote:i've seen 2-3 operspys done in the past few months, and every time there were 2-3 other opers instantly saying "why does that look like a drone" (all were drones except for one where one oper was playing a joke on another oper in a drone hunting channel)prefect wrote:If you believe this yourself, I call you naive. You're saying opers don't get jealous? Drunk? Pissed off? You're saying that there will be no abusive operspying ever?
Providing they see the operspy notice in the first place, which is not the case with EFnet as it is now. The vote that was voted in was Operspy with Accountability, right now there are servers NOT passing on operspy-notices meaning there's servers which does NOT have to answer for their actions.Auriga wrote:If it werent for people who disliked it, it could become a problem, but believe me..
As soon as someone abuses it, those folks who didnt want it in the first place will spalatter the shit up one side and the other of that oper, and make an example of them.
Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.prefect wrote:Providing they see the operspy notice in the first place, which is not the case with EFnet as it is now. The vote that was voted in was Operspy with Accountability, right now there are servers NOT passing on operspy-notices meaning there's servers which does NOT have to answer for their actions.Auriga wrote:If it werent for people who disliked it, it could become a problem, but believe me..
As soon as someone abuses it, those folks who didnt want it in the first place will spalatter the shit up one side and the other of that oper, and make an example of them.
Tho, in the old days servers ran it without it being voted in, secretly. So I guess there's not much difference there.
Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.leeh wrote:The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.Pills wrote:Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
One of them being a major hub with (currently) 7-8 client servers linked behind it.Pills wrote:Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.leeh wrote:The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.Pills wrote:Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
So, most of the time, there are only two servers that aren't passing them.
Topic: unapproved ircd hacksTopic: OperSpy Accountability wrote: Vote YES will require all uses of operspy, local and
global, to be broadcast and logged globally.
Topic: unapproved ircd hacks wrote: Specifically, no server shall run any ircd modification
that violates user privacy including but not limited to
operspy capabilities without accountability, and/or
circumventing channel modes such as +i/+b.
There's only one coder of csircd. Not that I'm making excuses for him, but he hasn't coded the module yet.prefect wrote:One of them being a major hub with (currently) 7-8 client servers linked behind it.Pills wrote:Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.leeh wrote: The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.
So, most of the time, there are only two servers that aren't passing them.
Topic: Operspy (local with accountability)
Topic: OperSpy AccountabilityTopic: unapproved ircd hacksTopic: OperSpy Accountability wrote: Vote YES will require all uses of operspy, local and
global, to be broadcast and logged globally.Topic: unapproved ircd hacks wrote: Specifically, no server shall run any ircd modification
that violates user privacy including but not limited to
operspy capabilities without accountability, and/or
circumventing channel modes such as +i/+b.
which is even worse than having a whole bunch of servers behind a hub that doesn't forward operspy-notices, allowing one server to do what they please with the posibility to forward this to other abusive opers.Pills wrote: ircd.nac only has irc.nac behind it.
I also think that whoever that would host services for that (XO) would getseiki wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about OPME.. would prolly get abused..
Opers have masskills and klines to make the drone channels empty, and we can simply cycle for ops. It's certainly a 'cowboy' approach to the DDoS drone problem though, which adds fuel to the fire..
-seiki
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests