My idea is: when an username will give a ban for host *!*@* on a level higher than 75, X to suspend that user in that channel for some days or remove that user from access list of that channel.
What to you think about my idea?

well... my suggestion is that better select the users who is going to be added to X access list so that banning a host ( *!*@* ) will be avoided in the channel.

how many people do takeovers where X is?... thats just stupid.

It is channel manager's responsibility to give access to individuals who know not to issue a mass ban like that. There is a limit for how much protection against stupidity can be implemented by CService and Undernet coders; from there, it's only a matter of judgment, common sense or experience. In a channel where the ops have no training and set mass bans, where the manager doesn't monitor what the other ops are doing, well - they deserve to get a *!*@* ban then whine for a few hours "why am I banned in my own channel", perhaps this way they will learn something.

Well to stop take overs lets try to be more careful and try to select the best @ for your channel ... dont give acces to anyone who joins your channel ...

yes, but if a user which have access 400+ give access to another user and that user make takeover?

Hopefully, you are in a position of power.

If you feel so threaten, shouldn't you prepare a plan of action, just in case?

You can get X commands at :
http://cservice.undernet.org/
Cservice forms and document
X commands

Commands which come to mind:
Status
ban
invite
remuser
suspend
set strictop

Other than an owner's stolen password, I can't think of no other reasons why an owner couldn't get back control of his channel. Perhaps, a lack of knowledge.

Well it`s the managers responsability to choose a few trusted users which will have 400+ on his channel. By trusted people i mean thouse users who have irc experience and are close friends to the manager.
Don`t give accesses like x`mas candy....you`ll just have problems whit your own channel.
A nice way of avoiding such circumstances is giveing an user access 74 on your channel, with autoop enabled.... This will prevent naughty users from mass banning thru X....i heard that from lemuel i think, sio give him credit for thi ideea.

I believe the answer is quite clear: no +400 to "strangers" and taking all measures enabled by 500 LU access.

Is there any need to continue on this topic??

Regards,
Melksedek

The question should have been: Can we stop takeovers ?
In my opinion i don't think that's actualy possible, sure we can work to fight it and prevent it in our channels but in actualy stoping them from happening at all i should belive not.

Regards,

Well then If you give an acces higher then 399 to an user that means .. that your user is verry trusted and you know him for a long time ( or maybe you shold know him ) .. But you can make a "rule" in your channel .. like ' never add an acces without my opinion '

I agree with Razvanet ...

Same here agree with Razvanet, anyways if you want to run a good channel as a founder/manager you are you have to choose the right admins (400+) for your channel people that are trusted and you know them well if possible in real life too. If the manager is doing his job well then the channel will run well too if you know what i mean.

You can't stop those kids doing this.
I can bet they have orgasm when they are doing so called takeovers

+400 to "strangers"? What are you talking about? You shouldn't give access to people you don't know well.Let alone giving 400 to a user you just met. Remember, somebody can still kick everybody off the channel even if he is 50+.

Melksedek it seems you don't know the meaning of the flags after the access level : L = Loaded. This means the entry is still in the memory cache; and U = In Use. The entry is currently in use; this is of 28-07-1996

It's not neccesary do add a new X feature to prevent "takeovers" on registered channels. If you are stupid enough to give access in your channel to a unknown person, then 1. You shouldn't have a channel in the first place. 2. You got what was coming to you.

I have the same oppinion about unregistered channels. I still wonder why ircops do reops, but hey, it's their choice.



Of course not, idiots will always exist, unfortunately. I'm not saying we should kill them or anything, let's just take the safety labels off everything and see what happends.

Of course not, idiots will always exist, unfortunately. I'm not saying we should kill them or anything, let's just take the safety labels off everything and see what happends. [/quote]


IN SHORT SAFETY FIRST BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE