Re: RFC: OP cheating

[Ville <viha@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Christophe Kalt wrote:

> On Mar 17, Ville wrote:

> | But I think it'd be a great idea if on the third/fourth/fifth nick change
> | within a minute (or some such period) the client was given a notice and
> | set +r(estricted).

> in this particular case, nick changes aren't numerous, nor
> fast.

Even the fact that there weren't numerous nickchanges in that op
cheating - which i don't think is a serious problem as there is no need to
auto-op people or support bots - doesn't change the amount of nick floods.
Why not put a stop to nick flooding with a simple and quite user friendly
patch ?

> | The "User x has been set +r(estricted)" notice could appear on &local or
> | &notices - I don't believe it would break any privacy.

> why would a global notice be necessary anyways?

I don't know what you mean with "global" - if you mean network wide, then
you got me all wrong. A notice to &local would help spot the clones/spam.

Dozens of people already use patches that echo to a local operator channel
all the nickchanges, quits, connects, and so forth.

I don't think all that is necessary but it would make a great admission if
the base ircd included a "nickflood stopper" (#define?) which would notice
&LOCAL about the possible problem situation.

*shrug* I thought other people shared my opinion.


- Ville/viha@xxxxxx