services.xo and services.us

[leeh]

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.

I honestly dont believe the host/domain searching in services.xo adds accountability. It may, or may not log. If it does log, theyre only available to a select group of people.

If TESTMASK were done in services instead, you still have no guarantee of accountability. Current searches of hosts/domains via xo are *not* accountable, so I dont see why it being in services automatically implies its accountable.

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..

Personally, I think the less thats centralised in services the better..

[-wassup-]

i use ratbox on my net and personally i am very happy about testmask. lets say someone loads up a load of clones using a /24. i can simply do a testmask on that and make sure all the clones are caught or no real clients are caught in the process. i dont really see how testmask could be abused. its not like operspy where it allows opers to see something they normally shouldnt.

[Hwy]

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

It's open source finally, but people trying to use it need to do a lot of work to get it to run. I've successfully gotten it running on my test network, so if you wish to use it, contact me privately and I'll give you more detailed (and correct) instructions on how to set it up.

[Quai]

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)

Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.

[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)

Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.

It`s alot of features that would be good, but its still crossing a barrier going there. I could have needed opme here the other day to fix a channel that doesnt match chyanfix requirements also, so they didnt have to cycle it.

This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.

[Quai]

This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.

I see your point, and I agree,
but this is not about TESTMASK at all, it plain politics :(

[leeh]

Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.

Its actually faster to just use global user@host limits ;-).

It`s alot of features that would be good, but its still crossing a barrier going there. I could have needed opme here the other day to fix a channel that doesnt match chyanfix requirements also, so they didnt have to cycle it.

OPME is a whole different kettle of fish to testmask :).

This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.

The thing is, TESTMASK does not realistically violate privacy any more than services.xo does - the objections to me seem to be political more than anything.