services.xo and services.us

[-wassup-]

didnt know u mean cpu cycles

[dubkat]

is there any reason on why services.int is closed source?

that's a very good question which more and more admins are asking these days..

-seiki

I know this post is a little bit old, but i noticed no one put a little update. While services.xo/int is closed source, there is Open Chanfix which can be found at http://www.garion.org/ocf/ which is, as the name implies, open souce.

[Hardy]

is there any reason on why services.int is closed source?

that's a very good question which more and more admins are asking these days..

-seiki

I know this post is a little bit old, but i noticed no one put a little update. While services.xo/int is closed source, there is Open Chanfix which can be found at http://www.garion.org/ocf/ which is, as the name implies, open souce.

Old thread it is.. however the current services.int are finally open source also after some preasure.. http://www.codestud.com/services/

[-wassup-]

is there any chance the source for services.xo will be released?

[leeh]

is there any chance the source for services.xo will be released?

Id doubt it - the features were supposed to have moved to services.int with services.xo dissapearing a long time ago..

[Hardy]

But i belive Sentinel IRC Services should cover most of the needs if you need a "services.xo lookalike". from what i understand Sentinel IRC Services is built based on the code services.xo has.

Then again, i could be wrong

[-wassup-]

yes that is what i currently use on my internet and i would like to extend a great thank you to Hwy for writing and maintaining it. i am pretty sure that it doesnt use any services.xo. it was based on geostats and extended far beyond that.

http://ircd.botbay.net/sentinel/ <--for anyone interested

[Quai]

With the TESTMASK command in ratbox (and other ircds?) there are no need for tcm/oomon to query xo anymore. Its an oper-only command to see how many clients matching a u@h mask.
ie;

/quote TESTMASK *@avalonworks.ca

Right now, it shows;

-!- *@avalonworks.ca 15 0 Local/remote clients match

and nothing more

And the DRONES command on .xo is preatty useless.

[Hwy]

Sentinel has no services.xo code, I have not seen services.xo's code and 99% likely never will. It was made to work with TCM/oomon (with /msg services@services.blah clones 4) and to provide a functional DRONES command. The functionality in DroneMon and current OOmon blows Sentinel's DRONES command away, however.

Also, TESTMASK is included with ratbox 1.4 and higher only. The original module worked with earlier ratbox and hybrid-7 releases (though probably not with 7.0/7.01 and certainly not 7-CURRENT) and is available from http://ircd.botbay.net/pub/hwy-mods/m_testmask.c. Note that the original module uses server NOTICE's and the ratbox module uses proper numerics.

[-wassup-]

anyone know if tcm/oomon/dronemon support testmask yet?

[Hwy]

TESTMASK is primarily something for opers to use. A bot probably doesn't need to use it.

Also, it appears TESTMASK is under a bunch of political bullshit, so it may end up going away (don't quote me on that)

[Hardy]

TESTMASK is primarily something for opers to use. A bot probably doesn't need to use it.

Also, it appears TESTMASK is under a bunch of political bullshit, so it may end up going away (don't quote me on that)

/me pushed the quote button

Yea, the discussion is if our ircd should be allowed to gather information about how many clients there is globaly on the network. Some would like to continue having global stats on a global service instead of the ircd, while others want the functionality locally..

[Hwy]

Well, TESTMASK is open source, services.xo is not. That's a plus there.

It could be easily made to OPERSPY or be logged. That can be done with 1-3 lines of code.

TESTMASK came about after I got bitched out on the EU EFnet mailing list about seconing a GLINE that some said was too broad. To devise a solution to the problem of knowing if a mask was right or too broad, I wrote TESTMASK first in Sentinel, as I felt that's where it should go. Shortly after, I included an implementation in my TCM-like ircd searching module, as it's easy to do and not TOO CPU intensive, as well as more available to operators. This sat for about a year until ratbox 1.4-2 included an improved implementation.

It was INTENDED to just help opers choose a proper GLINE mask, so that no innocents are caught. In this age of OPERSPY, I don't see why it's even questioned...as it's simply counts. TESTMASK can't show the users or what server's they're on, and it's all stuff that you can do with the OPERSPY variant of WHO and other, less efficient, methods (which are not logged).

[Hwy]

And also, TCM and oomon query services.xo for the CLONES command. There is no easy way to do an equivalent in ircd, and TESTMASK can't really do it either, since you need to know the user@host you wish to test.

CLONES #

Lists all clients services.xo considers clones, where the number you send is the number of clones that are not allowed. The current default for services.xo appears to be 6, it lists any user@host that has 6 or more connections to EFnet. TCM and oomon use 4 by default, allowing users to have 3 clones networkwide, but if they get 4, they'll be klined.

(and yes, non-opers are still permitted to use the CLONES command)

[Hardy]

Well, TESTMASK is open source, services.xo is not. That's a plus there.

It could be easily made to OPERSPY or be logged. That can be done with 1-3 lines of code.

TESTMASK came about after I got bitched out on the EU EFnet mailing list about seconing a GLINE that some said was too broad. To devise a solution to the problem of knowing if a mask was right or too broad, I wrote TESTMASK first in Sentinel, as I felt that's where it should go. Shortly after, I included an implementation in my TCM-like ircd searching module, as it's easy to do and not TOO CPU intensive, as well as more available to operators. This sat for about a year until ratbox 1.4-2 included an improved implementation.

It was INTENDED to just help opers choose a proper GLINE mask, so that no innocents are caught. In this age of OPERSPY, I don't see why it's even questioned...as it's simply counts. TESTMASK can't show the users or what server's they're on, and it's all stuff that you can do with the OPERSPY variant of WHO and other, less efficient, methods (which are not logged).

I belive the discussion is where do you draw the limit on what you hide into a ircd version. If it just gave the output of local users no one would have said anything, but most draw their limits when it comes to performing global searches of hosts on ircd with no accountability.

And even tho it "is the age of OPERSPY" , operspy sends a global broadcast to all opers when used, testmask dont.

The discussion isnt about the testmask itself, its where you draw the limit of what should be a local command vs. a global services command. Not every admin of this network has the same common sense when picking modules that the rest have..