[ircd-ratbox] Re: Feature request2: +d channel mode, gecos ban

Fred Jacobs lb at pobox.com
Sat Aug 9 00:04:42 EDT 2003

Yeah, I tend to agree that it's not a necessary feature.  I'd
rather not include it without a more compelling argument...
People sure love feature creep these days, though :)


On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:03:38PM +0100, Lee H wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 11:50:19AM +0200, Joakim Axelsson wrote:
> > Hi! 
> > 
> > In recent reading of EFnet related forums i see that a request by the users
> > for a channel mode +d to ban clients by thier gecos is increasing.
> > 
> > It would be nice if this was implemented so it could be moved for a vote on
> > EFnet. I think both ratbox and hybrid already have code for matching gecos,
> > only need to add the handling of the channel mode.
> > 
> > The +d is for historical reasons from old hybrid who had it but was removed
> > due to a bug. Don't ask me what the d stand for :-)
> > 
> > I don't think we need an exempt for the gecos ban since client can change
> > thier gecos much easier that thier ident at host.
> Well naturally, a +e would exempt from +d also.
> Personally, I think +d is worthless in the long run.  Take the example
> of using it to ban mediaforce bots.  Do people really think that they
> wont adapt to +d (these people are paid to do this remember) and it'll
> all have a happy ending?  I reckon the "drone like" clients this would
> be used against will just work round it.  Does that really leave any
> use for it?
> It may just be the cynic in me, but I see it as a solution that will
> work temporarily and then become useless over time.  I really dont
> think its worth it, or its usage would justify having it.
> -- 
> Lee H

More information about the ircd-ratbox mailing list