Your EFnet wishlist

[4518]

only thing i would change is to add ssl to at least a few servers

[4511]

I've been around efnet for 9 years.

keep things simple. i like the way things are right now.

long nicknames = waste of chat window. i really don't think its needed.

nickserv - worried about losing your nickname? who cares, its just a nickname. owning nicknames is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. who the FUCK cares if someone has "Zer0cool".

host masking means more flooding and trolling. if you want to hide your host, get a shell. showing the actual host is a good step to prevent abuse.

I think a lot of people are on efnet because of the lack of regulation it has. Nickserv/Chanserv/host mangling and all that crap would drive a lot of people way.

[4504]

I've been on EFnet since 1995 or so.

I would like to see a nickserv of some sort, honestly. Chanserv would be nice, too, but nickserv is the thing that really would be überkeen for me to see.

[4520]

Hello,

After following this thread, and from some personal thoughts, here is what I think:

* The topic/quit length needs to be uniform across servers.
* EFNet needs to be kept as simple as possible.

Things I wouldn't mind seeing in the future:

- Nick length 9 ---> 10 (not anything insane)
- SSL

- passwd

[4515]

This post got more involved then I originally planned, so bare with me.

I've been on this network since 96-97 somewhere. The one thing that really bugs me is spam, although it's not a real huge problem, in large part due to a lot of channels being +s.

One possible "solution" for the spam problem could be to implement a network-wide anti-spam service similar to QuakeNet's "S" service. I'm not sure exactly about the inner workings of this particular bot but I'm sure more intelligent people can figure it out. For people unfamiliar with it, it basically sits in large channels and watches for spam. Then when it detects spam it kills the spammer.

Another thing that's always been bugging me is how chanmodes +s and +p, and usermode +i works. And in extension /list, /names, /who and /whois. I won't go into details on how it works now since it's really confusing (and different from server to server if I'm not mistaken). Basically +s hides a channel from all of the previously stated commands, while +p doesn't hide a channel from /names and/or /who depending on which server you're on.

I'd like +s and +p changed so that one of them hides a channel from /list and another from /whois. Both of them respectively should hide people inside a channel from /who and /names coming from people outside the channel. Or even better, always hide users inside a channel to people outside a channel, no matter what chanmode or usermodes are in place.

[4468]

I'm really turned off to the idea of any major changes, just some small additions might be nice (though not necessary), just extra modes and flags at the most.

I support the suggestions to increase the topic length and to create a muted user flag. I agree that keeping a channel moderated and voicing everyone that joins is a pain. I've seen it not work a lot if people don't have their bots under control or if the owners get confused.

I don't agree with increasing nick length. Not more than 1-2 characters at least. If it's one thing about other networks that pisses me off, it's when people change their nicks every 10 minutes to reflect their latest impulse...

* Barry is now known as Barry|EatingASandwichLOLBRB

As far as half-ops is concerned, I don't see why you shouldn't add it, but I don't think many people will actively use it to its real purpose. Most of the time I see hop used, the people who have it are trusted enough to have op status anyway (and are sometimes given op status interchangably anyway). So much depends upon people's flags on a bot anyway.

I like exemptions as well to prevent collateral damage from bans.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot possibly my most two important positions. No nickserv or traditional chanserv (chanfix is alright, but nothing more please). If something, be it channel or nickname, is not being used at this time, someone else should be allowed to use it. Locking channels is ridiculous. I've always felt that if you have less services like that, more of your users will be able to learn how things work, they'll be more likely to use their own bots and won't just lean on the channel and nickname services.

[munky]

I'd like +s and +p changed so that one of them hides a channel from /list and another from /whois. Both of them respectively should hide people inside a channel from /who and /names coming from people outside the channel. Or even better, always hide users inside a channel to people outside a channel, no matter what chanmode or usermodes are in place.

+s hides from /list and /whois (assuming you are not in the channel with the user)
+p sends notifications to ops if someone /invites another user when the channel is +i

i think you're confusing the efnet +s/p with undernet's +s/p

[4522]

I've been a member of efnet since 1995.

I love the fact I still have my channel I started back in 1995

I didn't like the chanserv/nickserv feature of the other networks when I first started IRC since it seemed some of the channels would be empty and would stay empty since their original owners would abandon them.

Now that Efnet seems rather established and the fact that most of its users have been on the network for extended periods of time, it would be nice to implement the nickserv for those to keep their nicknames, especially if network expansion is anticipated. More east coast servers with stability would be great. More sense of community with the network helps as well. Most people choose networks based on a theme, such as Gaming or something of another topic. Efnet is a general network with full freedom of expression, keep it that way and I'm sure you'll maintain the client level you have now.

[4515]

+s hides from /list and /whois (assuming you are not in the channel with the user)
+p sends notifications to ops if someone /invites another user when the channel is +i

i think you're confusing the efnet +s/p with undernet's +s/p

I tested this on ratbox before I posted and +p is exactly like +s except that it doesn't hide a channel from /who, unless users are +i. If it also does something with notifications that's possible, but news to me.

[4514]

What is with all the animosity towards nickserv?

For me, I have had to change my nick 3 times in the past year. First time because someone wanted their BOT to have my nick. I got ddos'd for an hour over that. Second time it was because I was simply in a channel that someone else, who angered a third party, was in. Now they have been spamming a regular channel I am also in with it for the past few months. I have been banned because of this (only for a short time, but it is still annoying).

I think that the service more important than nickserv is some form of host services to hide your real address. I don't care about vanity hosts, get a bnc if you want that. I don't go on to stir up trouble, but trouble always seems to find me. Over the course of about 2 weeks, I was attacked repeatedly. I informed an opper, and was met with a summery 'you must have deserved it'. From the few oppers I have talked to, this has always seemed to be the attitude, which is why I expect this thread to go completely unanswered, and completely ignored. Maybe read for comedy, but not acted on.

If you think a bnc solves this problem, you are sorely mistaken. Instead of attacking your main host, they just take down the bouncer, and you need to get another one. I'm sorry, but I'm on irc to communicate, not to practice hiding my address every hour.

I also don't believe that host masking will spawn more server attacks. Perhaps hide what server they are on when host masking, and provide a /abuse <nick> <message> command of some sort to report a users abuse to the servers owners/oppers.

[lordares]

channel gecos bans please

[Garion]

Removed all irrelevant posts.

This is a suggestion/feedback thread, not a discussion thread. Please limit your posts to suggestions. We want to identify the kind of things our users are interested in first; after that, there will be plenty of time to discuss each issue.

Further irrelevant posts will also be deleted.

Thank you.

[Alien88]

I'm not a fan of services, such as nickserv, but I do understand the problem with jupes and establishing an identity.

What about a system for nicks similair to chanfix? It will record hostnames over a period of time and score them. Should your nick get juped or someone else use it and your score is above a level, then you can recover the nick.

This isn't straight out registration, but it does prevent jupenets and someone new from stealing an established nickname.

Alien88

[4514]

I'm not a fan of services, such as nickserv, but I do understand the problem with jupes and establishing an identity.

What about a system for nicks similair to chanfix? It will record hostnames over a period of time and score them. Should your nick get juped or someone else use it and your score is above a level, then you can recover the nick.

This isn't straight out registration, but it does prevent jupenets and someone new from stealing an established nickname.

Alien88

I know some people dont like chanfix, but I don't mind it. To be honest, I have never used chanfix, and I see it as a poor mans chanserv. With chanfix, you still need bots. Services like chanserv remove the need for bots altogether. But to me, thats not the big issue. Channels are held just fine with chanfix.

I think the idea of a nickfix is in the correct direction, but I think protecting the users should be above that. Hash IP addresses or similar and prevent general attacks, and make that the default with the option to disable it for a vanity host. I personally believe it would make the network less war-like, and more user friendly.

What it really breaks down to is simply, is EFnet about the users? Or is it a central hub for the scum of the internet (being packet monkeys and the like)?

[4524]

I agree a better chanfix. Improve the scoring on chanfix to recognise bots over man ops. Then if a chan is taken over with a new botnet you can get it back. Or have a way for opers if requested can add special scores to chanfix for a chan. However this would require more work out of your ircops but thats their job right? Maybe instead of killing drones all day to keep their shell accounts for their botnets we can improve the way efnet works. No more worries about take overs.

Some kind of advanced chanfix
Just a thought