On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Vin King <vin.king@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
With that line of reasoning, there is no reason to add additional features to the ircd, ever -- including client-side SSL. I don't have strong feelings for or against hostmasking, but using your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" reasoning, coupled with the belief that it increases the potential for abuse, as a case to not implement this feature just seems rather silly to me. This argument surfaces every time hostmasking is proposed on this list. Do you have any specific examples as to how this would make banning more difficult, or increase abuse across the network? As previously mentioned by another poster, other networks have shown that hostmasking can be implemented in a successful manner. Now, does this mean DALnet should offer hostmasking simply because a vast majority of other networks do? No, but DALnet can use them as a reference point on what does and does not work should a decision be made to implement this feature. -SecretAgent