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