Re: Invisible users

["Jukka Santala" <donwulff@xxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Tjernstrom" <d92-mtm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Brian" <ircd@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ircd-users@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Invisible users


> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Brian wrote:
> > Talking about flogging a dead horse.  It's almost unrecognizable.
> I think you are on thin ice now... For that to be entirely true you
> should probably make sure at least one of the following describes the
> situation:

AND, in addition, you make sure that the user actually reads the MOTD by
requiring them to acknowledge it manually (A modification to the anti-spoof
code should do) since many clients practically hide the MOTD. Even if they
didn't such one-sided announcement wouldn't be likely to hold in many
courts. Speaking of which, you should also ensure that none of the potential
other servers in your network are in jurisdication where such disclaimers
don't hold or haven't been tested in court (So you won't be made a
test-case). The same should ofcourse also hold for all parties you eavesdrop
on; given that domain-names don't always divulge real physical location, the
MOTD should also tell users to disconnect if the disclaimer isn't legally
binding in their jurisdication. Ofcourse, due to the potential for paradox
in that, you should also either K-line *@* or write a virus that forces
people to disconnect upon reading that MOTD. (Where applicable by law,
ofcourse)

Poor horse.

 -Donwulff