Re: your mail

[Ville <viha@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Piotr Kucharski wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 01:58:57PM +0200, Thomas Kuiper wrote:

> [... hiding user's hostname ...]

> maybe we should poll users? :)

You don't suggest we'd go democratic, though, do you? ;)

Well, IMO a flag to hide the hostname would be exceptionally welcome.

How about hiding it, and doing it in a smarter (?) fashion:

	- bans on *!*@real should work even if you are currently using
	  the semi-anon hostname.

	- that  should  probably be done with flags? ie. the suggested
	  +h. - all servers would receive the full hostnames but if +h
	  was  specified  when  the user was  introduced to the server
	  it  would just  simply use the @unreal hostname when talking
	  to users.

	- it could be useful  to have all the code-hostnames  end with
	  with  a certain suffix, say '.h'  (I can't think of anything
	  sensible right now).  That  way  it would be more trivial to
	  ban all the possible troublemakers (there's still +I if some
	  ''good guys'' need to get in)  since it is definitely likely
	  people will try to find their ways to abuse this feature.

	- should the semi-anonymous hostname contain a sign of the TLD
	  the user  is from?  After all,  it's probably quite possible,
	  with  a little know-how, to smurf out complete ''third net''
	  countries. Though, on the other hand... That would only make
	  it more and more certain it's the IRC server to get the hit.

	- i: wouldn't  allow umode +h.  Only I: would.  Though, again,
	  there  comes  the problem of people using this to flee from
	  complaints  sent to the ISP.  All operators should still be
	  able to see them then, I guess. *sigh*

	- Services get the real hostname and and the mode +h?
	
	- ...


> p.

Later,

- Ville/viha@xxxxxxxxxx