services.xo and services.us

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Tue May 04, 2004 4:06 pm

Hardy wrote: I belive the discussion is where do you draw the limit on what you hide into a ircd version. If it just gave the output of local users no one would have said anything, but most draw their limits when it comes to performing global searches of hosts on ircd with no accountability.
I honestly dont believe the host/domain searching in services.xo adds accountability. It may, or may not log. If it does log, theyre only available to a select group of people.

If TESTMASK were done in services instead, you still have no guarantee of accountability. Current searches of hosts/domains via xo are *not* accountable, so I dont see why it being in services automatically implies its accountable.
Hardy wrote: The discussion isnt about the testmask itself, its where you draw the limit of what should be a local command vs. a global services command. Not every admin of this network has the same common sense when picking modules that the rest have..
Personally, I think the less thats centralised in services the better..
-wassup-
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Middle East

Postby -wassup- » Tue May 04, 2004 6:51 pm

i use ratbox on my net and personally i am very happy about testmask. lets say someone loads up a load of clones using a /24. i can simply do a testmask on that and make sure all the clones are caught or no real clients are caught in the process. i dont really see how testmask could be abused. its not like operspy where it allows opers to see something they normally shouldnt.
Hwy
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:27 pm

Postby Hwy » Wed May 05, 2004 2:33 am

Hardy wrote:Old thread it is.. however the current services.int are finally open source also after some preasure.. http://www.codestud.com/services/
It's open source finally, but people trying to use it need to do a lot of work to get it to run. I've successfully gotten it running on my test network, so if you wish to use it, contact me privately and I'll give you more detailed (and correct) instructions on how to set it up.
Quai
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:43 am
Location: Drammen, Norway
Contact:

Postby Quai » Fri May 07, 2004 9:38 am

Hwy wrote:TESTMASK is primarily something for opers to use. A bot probably doesn't need to use it.

Also, it appears TESTMASK is under a bunch of political bullshit, so it may end up going away (don't quote me on that)
Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.
--
Kay Sindre Bærulfsen
// Quai * irc.avalonworks.ca
Yeah, my english sucks!
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Fri May 07, 2004 9:45 am

Quai wrote:
Hwy wrote:TESTMASK is primarily something for opers to use. A bot probably doesn't need to use it.

Also, it appears TESTMASK is under a bunch of political bullshit, so it may end up going away (don't quote me on that)
Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.
It`s alot of features that would be good, but its still crossing a barrier going there. I could have needed opme here the other day to fix a channel that doesnt match chyanfix requirements also, so they didnt have to cycle it.

This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
Quai
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:43 am
Location: Drammen, Norway
Contact:

Postby Quai » Fri May 07, 2004 10:22 am

Hardy wrote: This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.
I see your point, and I agree,
but this is not about TESTMASK at all, it plain politics :(
--
Kay Sindre Bærulfsen
// Quai * irc.avalonworks.ca
Yeah, my english sucks!
leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Fri May 07, 2004 5:07 pm

Quai wrote: Uhm, It would be faster and faster to do a TESTMASK on connecting clients, than to /msg x@services.xo CLONES 5 every now an then. CLONES shows n!u@h AND is not even a oper-only command, TESTMASK is.
Its actually faster to just use global user@host limits ;-).
Hardy wrote: It`s alot of features that would be good, but its still crossing a barrier going there. I could have needed opme here the other day to fix a channel that doesnt match chyanfix requirements also, so they didnt have to cycle it.
OPME is a whole different kettle of fish to testmask :).
Hardy wrote: This is about where you cross the lines letting the ircd perform global search and commands. If this is testmask version one and it gets "accepted", perhaps someone will continue pushing the limits on version two by having full nick!u@h, and then version 3 will cover channels aswell..

I`m not against tools that helps us to maintain the network, but its a proper way of implementing them, and thats by using our voting system when it comes to tools which uses global search.
The thing is, TESTMASK does not realistically violate privacy any more than services.xo does - the objections to me seem to be political more than anything.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests