What about +d?

[deppy]

I could just see it now.....Banning users based upon their irc server. As server bans get added because "i don't like joe admin for irc.server.tld, so i will ban all his users" +d has its good points, but I think that all in all, people would use it for petty bans.

[strikelight]

I could just see it now.....Banning users based upon their irc server. As server bans get added because "i don't like joe admin for irc.server.tld, so i will ban all his users" +d has its good points, but I think that all in all, people would use it for petty bans.

Any ban (inclusive of +b) can be petty, yet they are still of value and used. To rule it out because of potential pettiness is hypocritical.

[munky]

the way i see it, there isn't much use for +d other than the "petty" uses. any other functionality (keeping out floodnets) can be done quite easily enough with +Ieb. placing a blanket +d would be similar to a blanket +b *!*@*.com or similar, with some +e's for your friends.
but thats just my .02

[deww]

In regards to deppy's post, it's been done in a specific channel, which I shall not name, and for a specific server which the ops of that channel think it's criminal if you're using it and trying to utilize their channel's help resources.

[seiki]

In regards to deppy's post, it's been done in a specific channel, which I shall not name, and for a specific server which the ops of that channel think it's criminal if you're using it and trying to utilize their channel's help resources.

some people clearly take IRC too seriously, then.

-seiki

[strikelight]

the way i see it, there isn't much use for +d other than the "petty" uses. any other functionality (keeping out floodnets) can be done quite easily enough with +Ieb. placing a blanket +d would be similar to a blanket +b *!*@*.com or similar, with some +e's for your friends.
but thats just my .02

Keeping out floodnets with +Ieb, would do it alright... oh...unless for some strange reason you actually wanted to keep the channel open to the general public at the same time... but who would want to do that, right?

As I said on the old efnet.org forums when this issue came to ground,
if +d has no purpose, then neither does X-Lines... better phase them out now too. Something tells me that ain't going to happen.

[Haul]

OBVIOUSLY we will never see +d return to EFnet. Why? Because everyone knows if you /mode #channel +d services you can prevent ChanFix from joining and fixing channels. *rolls eyes*

[wundr]

OBVIOUSLY we will never see +d return to EFnet. Why? Because everyone knows if you /mode #channel +d services you can prevent ChanFix from joining and fixing channels. *rolls eyes*

I'm not sure if your post was sarcastic/trolling or not, so forgive me if it was.

Doesn't Chanfix join through channel modes/bans or unset modes/bans before it enters? Isn't that how it works when a chanfix/reverse gets done on a taken channel that has been set +i? It would then undo a +d chanmode the same way, right?

[Hwy]

I'm not sure if your post was sarcastic/trolling or not, so forgive me if it was.

Doesn't Chanfix join through channel modes/bans or unset modes/bans before it enters? Isn't that how it works when a chanfix/reverse gets done on a taken channel that has been set +i? It would then undo a +d chanmode the same way, right?

The old +d, it needed a specific capability negotiated when the two servers connected. The new one would work the same way. If a server that supports it connects to a server that does not, then no +d's will be passed along that link.

CHANFIX will SJOIN in, so it is unaffected by any channel modes. It will NOT however be able to clear a +d (and at present, won't be able to clear a +eI either(1)), so you may not be able to join.

(1) services is behind XO's hub, which as of yet does not support any of the extensions controlled by capabilities.

Code: Select all

ircd-w.us.xo.net[unknown@255.255.255.255] 0 319572372
           25093824 234871465 17411480 2862752 0 TS
                                                 ^^

There is no IE (for +I), EX (for +e), CHW (for /notice @#channel), or a number of other oper and protocol functions that users do not need. As long as services is behind this particular hub, nothing can be done.

Compare to

Code: Select all

ircd.choopa.net[unknown@255.255.255.255] 0 265825945
           21002614 77892028 6353979 1761757 0 TS QS EX IE CHW EOB KLN
           GLN KNOCK UID UNKLN CLUSTER ENCAP

for a link between 2 ratbox servers.

[munky]

Keeping out floodnets with +Ieb, would do it alright... oh...unless for some strange reason you actually wanted to keep the channel open to the general public at the same time... but who would want to do that, right?

As I said on the old efnet.org forums when this issue came to ground,
if +d has no purpose, then neither does X-Lines... better phase them out now too. Something tells me that ain't going to happen.

setting an xline on *0wn3d*by*r00t3r* is hardly as much of a "blanket ban" as banning all clients on a server with 10000 users. setting a +d on that isn't exactly keeping the channel open to the general public, either.

[strikelight]

Keeping out floodnets with +Ieb, would do it alright... oh...unless for some strange reason you actually wanted to keep the channel open to the general public at the same time... but who would want to do that, right?

As I said on the old efnet.org forums when this issue came to ground,
if +d has no purpose, then neither does X-Lines... better phase them out now too. Something tells me that ain't going to happen.

setting an xline on *0wn3d*by*r00t3r* is hardly as much of a "blanket ban" as banning all clients on a server with 10000 users. setting a +d on that isn't exactly keeping the channel open to the general public, either.

However, setting +d on *Own3d*by*r00t3r* WILL keep the channel open to the general public. Nice to see you care more about petty uses than legitimate usefulness.

And who CARES if a user sets +d on a server (although on the old +d implementation, servers were not affected, so who's to say they would be if it were to be re-introduced)... I mean seriously, it's a channel ban, Not a server-wide X-Line on *!*@* ... Let the channel runners do with channel modes as they please, and don't try to big-brother them. A person could just as easily set mode +b *!*@* and use exempts... I didn't hear you crying when the poll for +e was posted to protest petty uses.

[munky]

However, setting +d on *Own3d*by*r00t3r* WILL keep the channel open to the general public. Nice to see you care more about petty uses than legitimate usefulness.

And who CARES if a user sets +d on a server (although on the old +d implementation, servers were not affected, so who's to say they would be if it were to be re-introduced)... I mean seriously, it's a channel ban, Not a server-wide X-Line on *!*@* ... Let the channel runners do with channel modes as they please, and don't try to big-brother them. A person could just as easily set mode +b *!*@* and use exempts... I didn't hear you crying when the poll for +e was posted to protest petty uses.

um, you seem to have some confustion on what xlines and +d do...
an xline is a ban on gecos (realname field of /whois), it has nothing to do with hostmask.
+d is a channel ban on clients on a specific server (ie - ban all clients on irc.sexmeup.com).

edit:
oops, i was wrong, +d is a gecos ban. ok, retract all previous arguements about banning users on a specific server

[Hwy]

edit:
oops, i was wrong, +d is a gecos ban. ok, retract all previous arguements about banning users on a specific server

You're not totally wrong, a few years ago, there was a proposal to extend +d to block users from a specific server (mainly due to the issues (former, over 2 years ago) of spam and the lack of active operators on a select few servers). This never got implemented to the best of my knowledge, and the proposal pretty much died. If anyone is terribly interested, I could probably dig up the e-mails.

[HM2K]

I was talking about the +d as in gecos ban not banning on specific servers...

Is this the information you are talking about?

And is anyone interested in putting this forward (as in actually be implimented)?

Thanks

[Hardy]

I was talking about the +d as in gecos ban not banning on specific servers...

Is this the information you are talking about?

And is anyone interested in putting this forward (as in actually be implimented)?

Thanks

I wouldnt, not at this point atleast.
Requiring EFnet to use another feature that would require coding and restart so close to the +eI implementation is a bit overkill. Id say lets wait another half year or so, see what else we might want to implement and "add it to a package" with other features.