To solve the problem of takeovers from X disable the banmask *!*@*
Ex: /msg x ban #channel *!*@*
-X- The banmask is unavailable

so please make it fast

Any user using X to ban *!*@* has been granted the priviledge to do so by the channel administration

yes u could disallow *!*@* but there many combinations of the mask which can ban all users

give me some examples of such combinations
not many people know other combinations so please dissallow this banmask

this is not a good solution !

i agree with the last post
filtering out the masks is just not practical. Doing such a thing would take up to much CPU and memory for X. Remember X is under alot of pressure on Undernet.

is it so hard to place a small script such as: on 1:msg:ban #* *!*@* *:/msg $nick this ban is not allowed


or something like that:)

I think that user are using the command /msg x ban #channel *!*@* for revange..

Someone sed that X is under pressure on undernet and it`s not a good ideea..
But think about tha bans.. that X gives on the different channels... a takeover on a channel with more that 50 users... uses x a lot... think about 50 channels like that...

Or you can make availble the command for someone with access level more that 490 ... or so..

Usualy the userers with access from 399 to 450 are takeovering...
Think about it...
10x >=)

I think that user are using the command /msg x ban #channel *!*@* for revange..

Someone sed that X is under pressure on undernet and it`s not a good ideea..
But think about tha bans.. that X gives on the different channels... a takeover on a channel with more that 50 users... uses x a lot... think about 50 channels like that...

Or you can make availble the command for someone with access level more that 490 ... or so..

Usualy the userers with access from 399 to 450 are takeovering...
Think about it...
10x >=)

if you are worried about your people taking over using X (*@* ban) then you should be more careful when adding users to your channel. You should trust the people you are adding, and if you are adding some1 with 400+ then you should trust them even more because they have the power to add users.

regarding psihuletz's last post... its not as easy as that, and even code to do such a thing takes up cpu etc.

and regards to the last post... you doubling the cpu that would be used. first example of psihuletz's would be one check. But the second 1 would require checks to capture *!*@* then it would need to query the database for the user access etc.

also while i remember, if you are worried about non X users banning *!*@* then set STRICTOP, that way you will have only your trusted users with ops

hey but if someone steals someones password? for example on channels like #bucuresti or #romania a takeover will be a very bad thing:) so i think that it will be very good for us to disallow teh *!*@* banmask:) pleaaaaaaassssssseeeeee disallow it:)

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

or you can make username's to be payed for example to have a username to cost 1$ per month

do anything to disable this banmask:)

So i see that you do not want money:)

I had a good idea and you ignored me
ok...bye

I think the ban mask is fine, ops should be resposible enough to ensure that dosent happen anyway

loooool