Also lets not forget the fact that there are currently bnc and psybncs out there which can be used on top of open proxies to do the same job i.e. abuse users using different hostnames/ips/masks. Serverside hostmasking would not make that kind of significant difference in terms of abuse.

Regards,
White`Shark.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Kobi Shmueli <kobi@dal.net> wrote:

James Hess wrote:

In some rare cases, address masking might be used to assist a
miscreant in commiting an abuse. They might use address masking
to evade client-side /ignore filters. Torment a user while
masked, then unmask.

This is true.

However, my observation, in seeing the networks where masking has
been implemented on a certain scale: this is not that common. When
masking is enabled by default, especially.

*nod*, we should make /silence always affect both masked and unmasked hosts, though.

-Kobi.
_______________________________________________
DALnet-src mailing list
DALnet-src@lists.dal.net
https://lists.dal.net/mailman/listinfo/dalnet-src