Mr Key the command you mention for nick ban (nick!*@*) is only work when User Join the channel with same nick. -ChanServ- allow User's to come with different nick and after join the channel -ChanServ- is not going to verify akick User's (Added in akick List) to kick them out from the channel. akicked nick's still allow in the channel coz bot auto unban the list of +b User's. They are able to join the channel with different nick and after join the channel they are able to set that akick nick ( Added in akick list). -ChanServ- Should Ban akick User's, Does'nt matter If User change his/her nick after joining the channel or before join the channel. So i am not agree with you. And still its a bug for me.
And Mr Vin king, Dalnet allow Us to identified with nick, there is no INTERNET PROTOCOL RESTRICTION (IPR), We are allow to identified nick's with any ip/hostmask. So no way to add host in the akick list instead of nicks.Our identity is nick not hostmask. Yes i added host/mask too but rarely. when i see that user continuosly flood Abuse with same ip/mask. I already Discussed it with Dalnet staff regarding Host/Masking coz of continuosly nuking. Will see what happen.
On 5/13/10, key key@theirc.net wrote:
What you’re referring to is not a bug. The command is working as designed. Adding an akick by nick works on identified users only, and only on join. If you want to akick the nick regardless of identification, you can use nick!*@*. If you want the user to be kicked after identifying post-join, that is an enhancement request, not a bug.
-key
*From:* dalnet-src-bounces@lists.dal.net [mailto: dalnet-src-bounces@lists.dal.net] *On Behalf Of *zapp *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:40 PM *To:* Vin King *Cc:* Yoba@dal.net; dalnet-src@dal.net; dalnet-services@dal.net *Subject:* Re: [DALnet-src] Bug in (ChanServ)
Dalnet is allow to register nick not host/mask. So why i just put IP/HOST in akick instead of nick . They Use proxy Servers , Some ip mask change in C range B range so i am not going to discuss about ip/mask i am just asking about nick. If nick is in akick and the User joined with same nick. -ChanServ- should ban him/her .
- after identified(CONFIRMED THAT HE OWNS THE NICK) still ChanServ allow
that User on channel. So its a bug. Read my previous email carefuly i already mention that After confirmed(IDENTIFIED), -ChanServ- Allow him to stay on my channel
On 5/13/10, *Vin King* vin.king@gmail.com wrote:
If you akick the hostmask of the user instead of their registered nick, then they would be akicked regardless of if they identify to a nick or not.
Take into consideration that if someone on dialup has a registered nick, and does not identify to it the next time they connect. Their IP address would be different than the last time they connected, and ChanServ wouldn't be able to identify them as the registered nick owner.
When you add just a registered nick to akick it can only akick if it confirms that the person in question owns the nick. If you akick based on hostmask, it won't matter.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM, zapp zapp@channelpakistan.net wrote:
Hello Again, Today i am here to tell you people that there is a bug in -ChanServ- . I am the Sop on #Pakistan and today when i just add User in akick list. -ChanServ- allow him to join my channel because the User was'nt identified While joined the channel. After Joined the channel he identified his nick and chat like a simple user. ChanServ allow him on Channel. It does'nt matter User is identified or not Chanserv should akick him/her identified or without identified or atleast identified. So i just consider it as a bug and Discuss it with Kobi_S. He also consider it as a bug.
Hope you people look into it.
Regards
Official #Pakistan Admin zapp _______________________________________________ DALnet-src mailing list DALnet-src@lists.dal.net https://lists.dal.net/mailman/listinfo/dalnet-src
-- Official #Pakistan Admin zapp
1. You want to ban a nick through Chanserv and your problem is if a user joins and haven't identified for the nick is not kicked.
Solution: As already key defined it you can add nick!*@* - that will work for you.
2. You want chanserv to keep a check on nick change and Chanserv will verify if the changed nick is not in akick and if the nick is in akick it should kick?
Solution: Not possible - Why? Because there are millions of channels and millions of users changing their nick every second. Imagine the traffic of check commands genetered in the Chanserv checking for nick changes. \
Use some common sense, script something over mIRC or over an eggdrop to keep a check, Since you're admin of a big channel, I am sure you have some talented people over there :)
Secondly Its not a bug, its just how it is coded. So kindly don't call it as a bug, as key already defined, what you're asking is an enhancement in chanserv.
Thank you
Regards,
Sunny
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:20:23 +0500 From: zapp@channelpakistan.net To: dalnet-src@dal.net CC: Subject: [DALnet-src] Re: [DALnet-services] Bug in (ChanServ)
Mr Key the command you mention for nick ban (nick!*@*) is only work when User Join the channel with same nick. -ChanServ- allow User's to come with different nick and after join the channel -ChanServ- is not going to verify akick User's (Added in akick List) to kick them out from the channel. akicked nick's still allow in the channel coz bot auto unban the list of +b User's. They are able to join the channel with different nick and after join the channel they are able to set that akick nick ( Added in akick list). -ChanServ- Should Ban akick User's, Does'nt matter If User change his/her nick after joining the channel or before join the channel. So i am not agree with you. And still its a bug for me.
And Mr Vin king, Dalnet allow Us to identified with nick, there is no INTERNET PROTOCOL RESTRICTION (IPR), We are allow to identified nick's with any ip/hostmask. So no way to add host in the akick list instead of nicks.Our identity is nick not hostmask. Yes i added host/mask too but rarely. when i see that user continuosly flood Abuse with same ip/mask. I already Discussed it with Dalnet staff regarding Host/Masking coz of continuosly nuking. Will see what happen.
On 5/13/10, key key@theirc.net wrote:
What you’re referring to is not a bug. The command is working as designed. Adding an akick by nick works on identified users only, and only on join. If you want to akick the nick regardless of identification, you can use nick!*@*. If you want the user to be kicked after identifying post-join, that is an enhancement request, not a bug.
-key
From: dalnet-src-bounces@lists.dal.net [mailto:dalnet-src-bounces@lists.dal.net] On Behalf Of zapp Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:40 PM To: Vin King Cc: Yoba@dal.net; dalnet-src@dal.net; dalnet-services@dal.net Subject: Re: [DALnet-src] Bug in (ChanServ)
Dalnet is allow to register nick not host/mask. So why i just put IP/HOST in akick instead of nick . They Use proxy Servers , Some ip mask change in C range B range so i am not going to discuss about ip/mask i am just asking about nick. If nick is in akick and the User joined with same nick. -ChanServ- should ban him/her .
+ after identified(CONFIRMED THAT HE OWNS THE NICK) still ChanServ allow that User on channel. So its a bug. Read my previous email carefuly i already mention that After confirmed(IDENTIFIED), -ChanServ- Allow him to stay on my channel
On 5/13/10, Vin King vin.king@gmail.com wrote: If you akick the hostmask of the user instead of their registered nick, then they would be akicked regardless of if they identify to a nick or not.
Take into consideration that if someone on dialup has a registered nick, and does not identify to it the next time they connect. Their IP address would be different than the last time they connected, and ChanServ wouldn't be able to identify them as the registered nick owner.
When you add just a registered nick to akick it can only akick if it confirms that the person in question owns the nick. If you akick based on hostmask, it won't matter.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:00 PM, zapp zapp@channelpakistan.net wrote:
Hello Again, Today i am here to tell you people that there is a bug in -ChanServ- . I am the Sop on #Pakistan and today when i just add User in akick list. -ChanServ- allow him to join my channel because the User was'nt identified While joined the channel. After Joined the channel he identified his nick and chat like a simple user. ChanServ allow him on Channel. It does'nt matter User is identified or not Chanserv should akick him/her identified or without identified or atleast identified. So i just consider it as a bug and Discuss it with Kobi_S. He also consider it as a bug. Hope you people look into it.
Regards
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Moiz Ahmed sunny@sunnyindustries.net wrote:
[snip]
I agree this is not a bug in ChanServ implementation. I think the functionality of channel bans or the functionality of AKICKs might have been misunderstood.
Perhaps this is really a documentation or helpfile bug, if the documentation is confusing, or allows you to believe that AKICK'ing a nickname will actually work and AKICK instantly on nick change, even if user is already joined to the channel.
Actually, AKICK did not work that way, even for bans based on hostname, the user already present in channel stays there, and does not instantly get banned on addition of a matching AKICK, if already in the channel.
Channel BANS or AKICKS do not prevent a user from utilizing a nickname. Banning/akicking nickname!*@* has not been documented as a way of preventing a nickname from being present in a channel.
Not a feature of bans/akicks, and the value of such a feature is unclear. Nickname is not really a good way of singling out a user for a ban, since they can simply use another unwanted nickname; presumably there are not just a small number of nicknames you would not want used in your channel -- it would likely be impossible to anticipate every possible unwanted nickname, and would utilize signfiicant banlist resources to even try to make a list of unwanted nickname patterns.
You can inform the user that a nickname is unacceptable, and ban that user by hostname, when they violate the rule, or use a client-side script to effectively implement an automatic ban on use of a verboten nickname.
These should be adequate workarounds.
Banning a nickmask is not that I know of, an officially supported method of preventing nickname used, and also happens to not work. Attempting to use a 'feature' that does not exist, or using a facility in an unsupported way, does not result in the software being buggy when it doesn't work like you would hope...
'banning' or akicking a nickname in that matter does not have the effect of preventing a nickname from being used.
Banning or Akicking prevents users from JOINING a channel. They do not eject members already in the channel, who now suddenly match a ban entry or akick entry, due to changes that occured after they joined.
Believe this is well-known behavior expected by most users.
2. You want chanserv to keep a check on nick change and Chanserv will verify if the changed nick is not in akick and if the nick is in akick it should kick? Solution: Not possible - Why? Because there are millions of channels and millions of users changing their nick every second. Imagine the traffic of check commands genetered in the Chanserv checking for nick changes. \
I firmly disagree with the suggestion that it is not possible. It might be more trouble than it's worth, or come with too much baggage or complexity (such as some CPU requirements and significant memory or storage requirements), but that's all.
There are many ways to efficiently implement a facility that automatically kicks a user based on nick change (probably the best way would be to utilize forced /PARTs and off-load this work to IRCD, or build a large table of banned nick/channel combinations, in the form of a compiled nickname-matching table for each channel).
However, the behavior might be unwanted, and also, the utility and overall worth of such a feature seems questionable, especially given how much development effort and continuing maintenance a complicated feature like that would require, and the futility of actually banning specific unwanted nicknames....
It might be something to consider, but I do not see that it should be given priority.... -- -J
-
James Hess -
Moiz Ahmed -
zapp