DALnet has successfully done no hostmasking for over a decade, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it, in my opinion. Client side ssl, though, I feel is a reasonable enhancement request. What with more places offering wifi, and internet options on the go these days, I feel a more secure client to server communication is higher priority than hostmask offerings. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Michael Reynolds < michael.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Vin King <vin.king@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I don't think DALnet needs masking. I see plenty of room for abuse, and inability to properly ban things, especially if each server is independently hashing a hostmask.
BUT, if we WERE to mask, I'd go with a static hash of the address shared among servers. Connecting server hashes it, passes it as the hostmask to all other servers. Helps prevent abuse. Nick based masks hold plenty of room for abuse.
Considering DALnet's rate of growth over the past few years, and the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of networks that have successfully done hostmasking for close to a decade, I'd have to wonder why DALnet would not want to implement this feature.
For that matter, let's throw in client SSL. I don't want to hear the excuse that it uses too much load. A Gentoo box powered by a Dell 2950 with an Intel PT 1000 can handle over 100 million SSL connection setups and takedowns in a day, with a load average of 0, and this is without hardware acceleration. _______________________________________________ DALnet-src mailing list DALnet-src@lists.dal.net https://lists.dal.net/mailman/listinfo/dalnet-src