(If any of you got this twice, apologies, sent it from the wrong address
the first go)
So, the idea of user hostmasking was brought up on the dalnet-src@ mailing
list a few weeks ago
and since we already have the ability in bahamut (via SVSHOST) to have
services change a users
hostname at anytime, I am thinking why not do this on a global scale?
efnet (and others using the same ircd) have the ability to give specific
users their own custom host,
on a server level, like handing out I:lines. We already have infrastructure
setup for management of
things in different areas via services (nickname/channel ownership, akill,
etc).
On a small network I had running, I built into my services a way to allow
users to set a "custom"
hostname into NickServ done on the nick level, which worked a little like
the /ns set url - command.
To create a new host for nick xyz (whilst using that nick), I would use;
/ns set host some.random.hostname.
To turn off that option: /ns set host -
To minimise potential abuse, a list of hostmasks would say no you can't set
your hostname to have
the word "dalnet" or "staff" or "*.dal.net" in it. If the user tried to set
their host to be the same as another
users host or ip, it would deny the request. Finally, once a hostname was
set, services would not allow them
to change the hostname for that nick again for 1 week (unless it was to
turn it off).
For any other potential abuse problems that someone might cause, there was
a kill switch which a CSOp
could use to disallow the user from setting a custom host (kinda like
freeze), remove any existing host already
set.
This automated system looked beneficial in that any user could create their
own unique hostname without
having a bureaucratic system of having a specific team of opers having to
grant or deny any request on a
one-by-one basis.
So, with my system, when does services issue the SVSHOST command (aside
from when using /ns set host)?
The answer is it would happen when they /identify to their nickname (or
another nickname that they aren't currently
using) with a separate NOHOST option at the end for if they don't want the
host applied at that time.
Does a system like this sound of interest to anyone? Does anyone think
something like that would be too open
for potential abuse? Does anyone have any differing views on how to best
setup a user hostmasking system for the
network?
Thanks,
Holbrook aka zort aka srd
