Should Servers Deal w/ DNS Spam or Shouldn't They.. POLL

[x]

Does this cause problems to anyone/anything else than to those people who read the hostnames and see that they're not hierarchial? I personally think this is not a big deal though I prefer to use short host, mostly "example.tdl" if possible (well I own a domain of my own + I have static IP so it's not a problem. I consider those hosts which have a lot of words with uppercase and lowercase letters separated with many many dots a bit harassing, example "iM.sO.BADass.I.cOULd.packET.YOu.WitH.MaH.56k.tdl". I don't understand though why I got banned for dnsspam once from a server when I used host "an.example.tdl", made me jus thinking "damn what tightasses" and I surely wouldn't have been any kind of problem because abusing people isn't one of my hobbies.

If there's something I should be aware of please let me know, but at the moment I don't see any big problem in this dns "spam". I don't see it causing problems like those graffits on the walls. Is it just the human who cares or does the computer care also?

[seiki]

I like the funny vhosts.. they're one of the few things that still make IRC sort of amusing.. wooping.and.hollering.like.a.drunkindian.com .. c'mon, that's FUNNY..

I guess I don't really understand what DNS pollution is.. I mean, they are legit IP allocations, right?

I generally let the TCM bot enforce user@0/24 bans automatically, so if some shell account user loads up a floodnet from some poorly configured shell provider, it gets the autoKline..

I also perm ban certain words in the config, like *packet*, *terror*, *fear*, and a few others which clearly wouldn't show up in a positive vanity host...

..but for the most part, I leave the users alone until they prove to be a problem. I don't expect everyone to IRC from their home IP's. That's sort of foolish, to be honest.

Not everyone has the brains or cash to colo their own unix box to IRC from, so they get shell accounts and IRC from there.

I guess it boils down to the hosts.. if I encounter a problematic connection on a very negative vhost, and upon scanning the netblock find all the hosts are negative.. I'd consider a server ban.

hell, qurve irc's from fuck.you if I remember correctly ... can't get more offensive than that...

<3 qurve!

regards,
douglas

[eil]

I think hosts like bsd.gods.dont.need.to.readthefukinmanual.com are way too long, Having said that people have started replacing .'s with -'s to avoid being classed as dns pollution, but lots of ISPs do that as it is, so i guess its its hard to catch automatically.

[slushey]

Ok. I'm just trying to think this out myself. What do we have against dns spam? Why shouldn't users be able to connect from say last.night.your.mom.slipped.tripped.and.fell.on.my.di.ck if they wanted to? Who is it HONESTLY hurting? DNS pollution really isn't that bad, it is in fact a selling point for many shell providers that base their support channels on EFnet.

*evilgrin*

[lucy]

Ok. I'm just trying to think this out myself. What do we have against dns spam? Why shouldn't users be able to connect from say last.night.your.mom.slipped.tripped.and.fell.on.my.di.ck if they wanted to? Who is it HONESTLY hurting? DNS pollution really isn't that bad, it is in fact a selling point for many shell providers that base their support channels on EFnet.

*evilgrin*

its not up to the users, its up to the server admins... some dont like dns spam, some dont care...
personally i dont care, but i'm not an admin.
i have some shell accounts, and i know how hard it is to find a vhost thats not long and annoying although i have even seen some of the shorter ones still get klined for dns spam... which i dont quite understand.

i would encourage all shell admins to not make such long annoying vhosts, and that would help.

[munky]

depends on the shell providers
some providers 'specialize' in 2nd level domains

[slushey]

But would it hurt you that bad to allow l.o.n.g.a.n.n.o.y.i.n.g.v.h.o.s.t.s.t.o.c.o.n.n.e.ct? Who is it actually hurting? Honestly, the way I see it is if the host isn't vulgar, harassing or abusive then there is no reason for it not to be let on.

Just my two cents.

*kills keyboard* stupid school keyboard. i've had to go back and add about 50 letters now.

[strikelight]

Personally, I dislike seeing long vhosts entering and parting channels...

Having said that, I do think it's a contradiction of the long standing nature of EFNet (and modern society) to prohibit the usage of freedom of expression. EFNet has long since been associated with freedom (Yes, I know the network name did not originate from the meaning of "Freedom", but its structure has always been one modelled after it)... Servers using spamcalc go against this tradition and familiarity that have made EFNet what it is.. I think the question to ask is, do the servers that implement spamcalc really belong on EFNet? Do they really believe in the ideals and traditions in what made EFNet popular?

Another question to ask, do these servers think they are doing any favors to any channel? The answer to this question has been answered multiple times in this thread already, by solutions provided to channel owners, in setting bans to take care of long vhosts, if they so choose....

This policy is very much like a dictatorship... Just my 10 cents... my 2 cents is free...

[munky]

actually, technically, i think they are following the tradition of efnet... in the fact that efnet has few global policies. when it comes to local server bans, it is at the descretion of the /admins to say what can/can't be banned.
if they felt so inclined, they could ban *.*-*.* with the reason "it looks like conjoined twins connected at the ear, buy me pretzels"
if the server doesn't hurt the network or break any global policies, then i see no reason why they can't run spamcalc or any other script/bot that pleases them.

[strikelight]

actually, technically, i think they are following the tradition of efnet... in the fact that efnet has few global policies. when it comes to local server bans, it is at the descretion of the /admins to say what can/can't be banned.

That isn't tradition... That's the defacto fallback rule for saying "I'm right, you're wrong just because"...

When people think of EFNet, they don't think of a singler server, they think of a network of several servers linked together, and as such, the majority of the policies is what resounds in our minds.. As the famous adage goes, "There is no 'I' in 'TEAM'" ... (Although, to see operwalls, one would note 'team' is used loosely in regards to EFNet at most points in time, but that's neither here nor there...)

Again, not what EFNet was known to become.. I covered what efnet is/was known for in my previous post, so no need to reiterate.

[Pills]

actually, technically, i think they are following the tradition of efnet... in the fact that efnet has few global policies. when it comes to local server bans, it is at the descretion of the /admins to say what can/can't be banned.

That isn't tradition... That's the defacto fallback rule for saying "I'm right, you're wrong just because"...

Actually, it IS tradition, and one that even the new-school admins stick to. I remember a time where a server that umich had C/Ns with refused to hub us if we were hubbing another server (hobbes.kzoo.edu, IIRC). Servers can dictate what users, and servers, connect to them. Just as no one's forced to exchange C/N lines, no one's forced to allow a particular client on.

When people think of EFNet, they don't think of a singler server, they think of a network of several servers linked together, and as such, the majority of the policies is what resounds in our minds.. As the famous adage goes, "There is no 'I' in 'TEAM'" ... (Although, to see operwalls, one would note 'team' is used loosely in regards to EFNet at most points in time, but that's neither here nor there...)

Again, not what EFNet was known to become.. I covered what efnet is/was known for in my previous post, so no need to reiterate.

So, you're reading operwalls, eh? Hmm...

Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.

Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.

[Hardy]

Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.

Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.

*applauds*

This is a very very good answer from someone who knows what he is talking about guys

[Jon]

Not that it matters, but this dns "spam" or "pollution" doesn`t bother me.
Sure it`s annoying to see, but there are options to hide that.
Also, what about those "spam" channels like #dont.whois.me.because.this.is.my.lame.ass.spam.channel.and.you.etc.

I seen shell providers with like 30ips and 2 domains, so they had no choice but to go the extra mile.

Personally, I just use a domain.ca or a simple vhost.domain.ca
I don`t see the harm in these 20ish character long hostname, just an annoyance. Hell, I even maxed out a vhost once , 64 chars i think

It wouldn`t hurt me to have the long hostnames blocked, but what would people think of Efnet then?

@CPE0080c801af0b-CM000a735f162?.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com
now that is ugly

[strikelight]

actually, technically, i think they are following the tradition of efnet... in the fact that efnet has few global policies. when it comes to local server bans, it is at the descretion of the /admins to say what can/can't be banned.

That isn't tradition... That's the defacto fallback rule for saying "I'm right, you're wrong just because"...

Actually, it IS tradition, and one that even the new-school admins stick to. I remember a time where a server that umich had C/Ns with refused to hub us if we were hubbing another server (hobbes.kzoo.edu, IIRC). Servers can dictate what users, and servers, connect to them. Just as no one's forced to exchange C/N lines, no one's forced to allow a particular client on.

Poor pills.... I know it's been a long time since you were a normal user... You must have forgotten the reason why EFNet exists at all... It wasn't just to link a bunch of servers together just so fellow admins and opers could use exclusively. No, it was created for the open public... So as far as tradition goes, we are talking about tradition from a user's stand point... try to remember back that long ago, I know it's hard as you get up in years, but atleast make the effort

When people think of EFNet, they don't think of a singler server, they think of a network of several servers linked together, and as such, the majority of the policies is what resounds in our minds.. As the famous adage goes, "There is no 'I' in 'TEAM'" ... (Although, to see operwalls, one would note 'team' is used loosely in regards to EFNet at most points in time, but that's neither here nor there...)

Again, not what EFNet was known to become.. I covered what efnet is/was known for in my previous post, so no need to reiterate.

So, you're reading operwalls, eh? Hmm...

Back a year or so ago, when I was oper'ing, yes...

Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.

Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.

Well, let's go back to the democracy part... Because, when you think of it... EFNet's foundation of formation was actually based on democracy... There was a server that was uncontrollable and allowed massive amount of spammers and such, that the rest of the network "voted" much like in a democracy, to break off and create a new network... that network being EFNet (and IRCNet)... Heck, there are even votes for servers to be let in, votes for new policies, votes for almost anything.. So please continue on telling me that EFNet isn't based on a democracy, I'm sure you will convince the masses.

[Pills]

That isn't tradition... That's the defacto fallback rule for saying "I'm right, you're wrong just because"...

Actually, it IS tradition, and one that even the new-school admins stick to. I remember a time where a server that umich had C/Ns with refused to hub us if we were hubbing another server (hobbes.kzoo.edu, IIRC). Servers can dictate what users, and servers, connect to them. Just as no one's forced to exchange C/N lines, no one's forced to allow a particular client on.

Poor pills.... I know it's been a long time since you were a normal user... You must have forgotten the reason why EFNet exists at all... It wasn't just to link a bunch of servers together just so fellow admins and opers could use exclusively. No, it was created for the open public... So as far as tradition goes, we are talking about tradition from a user's stand point... try to remember back that long ago, I know it's hard as you get up in years, but atleast make the effort

First off, my wife has been a normal user for 13 years. I speak to normal users every day. While it was created for the "open public" as you put it, admins have *always* had control. Control over I: lines, control over C/N lines, control over K:lines. As I said, a "normal user" is one who rarely, if ever, deals with the "government" of EFnet. I'm sure that, from a user's standpoint, having K:lines on certain vhosts doesn't make that big a dent in who has problems connecting, or the percentage of users that actually ever see "government". How about comparing it to three years ago, when people were practically offering to buy I:lines because they could not get on a server at all? The only thing that has increased the exposure of the top layer, so to speak, is CHANFIX, and that's mostly automated anyway.

It's been a *very* long time since my wife needed me to do something for her on IRC, or any of my friends (except for the occasional CHANFIX). I know a LOT of ex-opers and admins that have never looked back, and rarely needed an oper after that.

Considering I've held my O:line for over 10 years, I've seen what the early days of the network held, as well as now. The control of the admin over these things has remained constant that whole time.

When people think of EFNet, they don't think of a singler server, they think of a network of several servers linked together, and as such, the majority of the policies is what resounds in our minds.. As the famous adage goes, "There is no 'I' in 'TEAM'" ... (Although, to see operwalls, one would note 'team' is used loosely in regards to EFNet at most points in time, but that's neither here nor there...)

Again, not what EFNet was known to become.. I covered what efnet is/was known for in my previous post, so no need to reiterate.

So, you're reading operwalls, eh? Hmm...

Back a year or so ago, when I was oper'ing, yes...

Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.

Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.

Well, let's go back to the democracy part... Because, when you think of it... EFNet's foundation of formation was actually based on democracy... There was a server that was uncontrollable and allowed massive amount of spammers and such, that the rest of the network "voted" much like in a democracy, to break off and create a new network... that network being EFNet (and IRCNet)... Heck, there are even votes for servers to be let in, votes for new policies, votes for almost anything.. So please continue on telling me that EFNet isn't based on a democracy, I'm sure you will convince the masses.

From dictionary.com:

Oligarchy -

1a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b.Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons

This is exactly what EFnet is. There are currently about 112k clients on EFnet. Do they have a vote? Do they vote for admins to represent you? No. Democracy implies that everyone has a vote, at least in voting in representatives. This is government by a few, and always has been.

In the examples you give, who voted? Did the few hundred users at the time of the formation of EFnet? No, the admins did. Votes for servers, votes for policies... do you vote? No, but I do, because I'm an admin. So, while the admins themselves has a democracy, the network itself is an oligarchy. You as a user have no power, no vote. As an admin, I have a vote.