How do people feel about OPME on EFnet ?

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

Do you think that IRC Operators should have access to OP people in channels manually?

Yes, allmost every other network has it.
7
14%
No, i dont think EFnet should have services at all.
7
14%
No, I like EFnet the way it is. Chanfix is enough for me.
36
72%
 
Total votes: 50
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Sat Sep 27, 2003 11:39 am

rudegyal wrote:getting help in chanfix is hard enough, let alone a ircop opin ppl in chans :!:
/stats p
/msg active oper
problem solved
Hwy
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:27 pm

Postby Hwy » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:28 pm

prefect wrote: /stats p
/msg active oper
problem solved
Provided the server doesn't run patches that allow opers to fake their idle time.
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:04 pm

prefect wrote:If you believe this yourself, I call you naive. You're saying opers don't get jealous? Drunk? Pissed off? You're saying that there will be no abusive operspying ever?
i've seen 2-3 operspys done in the past few months, and every time there were 2-3 other opers instantly saying "why does that look like a drone" (all were drones except for one where one oper was playing a joke on another oper in a drone hunting channel)
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
Jepp
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:50 pm

Postby Jepp » Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:42 pm

even though i don't mind them, i voted that we shouldn't have services at all. i have always like EFNet the way it is, and when i started on this network it never had services, i guess that's why i picked it. if it was to have other services you might as well merge with DALNet or some other network like that :?
People expect more from a kid named Jepp. Jepp's not just a name, it's an idea!
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Fri Oct 03, 2003 6:34 pm

Jepp wrote:even though i don't mind them, i voted that we shouldn't have services at all. i have always like EFNet the way it is, and when i started on this network it never had services, i guess that's why i picked it. if it was to have other services you might as well merge with DALNet or some other network like that :?
We still don't have services, which is a good thing. Except for the possibility that chanfix might go down for some reason and there's no backup(*), chanfix is totally 100%cool in my book. But chanfix has had three hundred threads already and don't need another one, so I'll leave it at that.

Disregarding what I've said before in this thread I don't see OPME as a threat to privacy nor to the good, old first-come-first-served basis EFnet is. If anyone misused it, there would probably be hell. Other services like operspy is more a threat as it's seen by opers only.

(*I dunno if this is still an issue)
User avatar
Auriga
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 1:29 am
Location: Canada

Postby Auriga » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:15 pm

munky wrote:
prefect wrote:If you believe this yourself, I call you naive. You're saying opers don't get jealous? Drunk? Pissed off? You're saying that there will be no abusive operspying ever?
i've seen 2-3 operspys done in the past few months, and every time there were 2-3 other opers instantly saying "why does that look like a drone" (all were drones except for one where one oper was playing a joke on another oper in a drone hunting channel)
Yea, people get high hell questioned when they do an operspy on a nick that dosent look like a drone.
I think the opers who didnt want it in the first place are a good check and balance for this new tool. Its good that not everyone agrees sometimes. Like in this case.

If it werent for people who disliked it, it could become a problem, but believe me..
As soon as someone abuses it, those folks who didnt want it in the first place will spalatter the shit up one side and the other of that oper, and make an example of them.
Efnet Operator..
RIP *.qeast.net I'll miss you! :(
Auriga is qurves slave! (is a Forum moderator)
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:48 pm

Auriga wrote:If it werent for people who disliked it, it could become a problem, but believe me..
As soon as someone abuses it, those folks who didnt want it in the first place will spalatter the shit up one side and the other of that oper, and make an example of them.
Providing they see the operspy notice in the first place, which is not the case with EFnet as it is now. The vote that was voted in was Operspy with Accountability, right now there are servers NOT passing on operspy-notices meaning there's servers which does NOT have to answer for their actions.

Tho, in the old days servers ran it without it being voted in, secretly. So I guess there's not much difference there.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:39 am

prefect wrote:
Auriga wrote:If it werent for people who disliked it, it could become a problem, but believe me..
As soon as someone abuses it, those folks who didnt want it in the first place will spalatter the shit up one side and the other of that oper, and make an example of them.
Providing they see the operspy notice in the first place, which is not the case with EFnet as it is now. The vote that was voted in was Operspy with Accountability, right now there are servers NOT passing on operspy-notices meaning there's servers which does NOT have to answer for their actions.

Tho, in the old days servers ran it without it being voted in, secretly. So I guess there's not much difference there.
Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:06 am

even xo does this now?
leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:12 pm

Pills wrote:Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:16 pm

leeh wrote:
Pills wrote:Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.
Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.

So, most of the time, there are only two servers that aren't passing them.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:33 pm

Pills wrote:
leeh wrote:
Pills wrote:Sorry, every server has been passing them for a while now.
The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.
Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.
So, most of the time, there are only two servers that aren't passing them.
One of them being a major hub with (currently) 7-8 client servers linked behind it.

Topic: Operspy (local with accountability)
Topic: OperSpy Accountability
Topic: OperSpy Accountability wrote: Vote YES will require all uses of operspy, local and
global, to be broadcast and logged globally.
Topic: unapproved ircd hacks
Topic: unapproved ircd hacks wrote: Specifically, no server shall run any ircd modification
that violates user privacy including but not limited to
operspy capabilities without accountability, and/or
circumventing channel modes such as +i/+b.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:00 pm

prefect wrote:
Pills wrote:
leeh wrote: The XO and nac hubs dont pass them. Operspy notices require the "ENCAP" capability to propagate - neither of those two hubs support it.
Ah, could've sworn that was fixed a few weeks ago.
So, most of the time, there are only two servers that aren't passing them.
One of them being a major hub with (currently) 7-8 client servers linked behind it.

Topic: Operspy (local with accountability)
Topic: OperSpy Accountability
Topic: OperSpy Accountability wrote: Vote YES will require all uses of operspy, local and
global, to be broadcast and logged globally.
Topic: unapproved ircd hacks
Topic: unapproved ircd hacks wrote: Specifically, no server shall run any ircd modification
that violates user privacy including but not limited to
operspy capabilities without accountability, and/or
circumventing channel modes such as +i/+b.
There's only one coder of csircd. Not that I'm making excuses for him, but he hasn't coded the module yet.

ircd.nac only has irc.nac behind it.

Concentric has 3 client servers behind it: aloha, lagged, and it's own. While all of Canada is behind concentric right now, they are all going through a different hub connected to concentric, so they can all see any .ca operspy msgs.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:07 pm

Pills wrote: ircd.nac only has irc.nac behind it.
which is even worse than having a whole bunch of servers behind a hub that doesn't forward operspy-notices, allowing one server to do what they please with the posibility to forward this to other abusive opers.

(note: i'm talking 100% hypothetically, not about nac nor any specific opers)
sealie
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: Troms�, Norway
Contact:

Postby sealie » Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:26 am

seiki wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about OPME.. would prolly get abused..

Opers have masskills and klines to make the drone channels empty, and we can simply cycle for ops. It's certainly a 'cowboy' approach to the DDoS drone problem though, which adds fuel to the fire..

-seiki
I also think that whoever that would host services for that (XO) would get
far more problems than today as it is hosting CHANFIX. My personal oppinion about OPME
is that it doesn't belong on EFnet and I really dont see the big practical use for it.

CHANFIX sure fixed alot of problems and brought EFnet new life, but I
think this service would just (as seiki said) add fuel to the already huge fire.

- sealie
oper, efnet.demon.co.uk, efnet.port80.se & irc.efnet.nl

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests