[quote="Freeman^"][quote]
On 2002-08-29 11:26, psihuletz wrote:

put X on a new server with a good processor like Pentium 4 2,4 GHz and 512 DDR RAM :smile:
if you have no money we i mean users of undernet will sponsor you :smile:


[/quote]

loooool [/quote]

gimme coffe.

No use to disallow *!*@*. It can be replaced by a*!*@*, b*!*@* and so on. No use to disallow basic regex matching chars * || ?. Yours 'new good idea' won't stop takeovers. Period.

Cheers to *!*@*,
C.

If we disallow *!*@* whats to stop people banning *!*@?* or *!*@*.??? *!*@*.???? *!*@*.??
what about other ban masks? *!*@*o* ?

theres a huge number of banmasks that match everyone, and uh, surely the people doing the takeovers could just set +i or +k ?

I don't see any sense in this.

Regexps in bans, now there's an idea. *drools* Even POSIX will do. :-)
But, yes, yes, that'll bring everything to a complete halt. I can still dream, though.
Oh, and on-topic. Disabling *!*@* is silly. It takes away some pretty nice screwups when $op wants to ban, say, non-idented users (during a floodbot attack) and ends up banning *!*@*. :-)

What about a system in X that requires 200(or something)+++ if you will activate a ban that will kick 5 users or more?

I'm sure X is running on something with a LOT more juice than that!!!

(My guess is a several-GB Sun box hooked into a RAID array and redundant T3 connections)

As for th global banmask bits... hey if you're REALLY worried about a takeover, then it's time to consider bumping some access levels DOWN and/or set StrictOp. As for all the legitimate ops getting kicked/banned... you CAN config X for your channel w/o being in it... including the removal of bans. Shoot you can even do that on the Cservice website, if I'm not mistaken.

an op can remove the user that set the *!*@*, remove the ban and sort everything else out. Why oh why do people want to give people access on X that are going to turn around and ban everyone?