[IRCServices] A discussion on the contents of the todo file

[Bryan Clark]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:00:00 +0500, Imran Ali Rashid said:

> Warning: this is a LONG email.

Reply won't be quite as long -- don't worry. ;)

>  > ** Warn about being kicked off after N password failures
>  
>  Has there been a discussion on this?
>  

I'm not sure if there was, but I don't see the point of a warning -- if
all you're going to do is kill them, no user intent on cracking a
password is going to care all that much.

>  > OS REHASH command

I thought rehash was already added .........

>  > CS SET REVENGE (reverses ban, etc. set by lower level user on
>  higher,
>    and optionally deops/kicks/bans lower level user)

Couldn't really see the point of this, either -- there was a long
discussion about it about a month ago.

>  > CS Last used time for access, AKICK entries
>  
>  This is a good idea. This was even mentioned by someone recently.
>  So lets discuss it and see how many people like it.
>  

As an extension to that, I was considering making those entries expire
after a certain amount of time. I got it to work well enough on mine for
akicks, but I just decided to scrap it for access-list entries -- I
figure that access lists are normally far longer than akick lists, so
it'd just slow things down too much on any medium-sized network. 

As far as just showing the last-used time, though, I don't see any
problems with that.

>  > NS SET ALL (especially PASSWORD) for all linked nicks
>  

I don't like the SET ALL idea either, mainly for the reasons you gave.
Something similar to Dal's "/chanserv why" command, on the other hand,
probably wouldn't be too hard (just an extension of the current
"/chanserv listchans" that was being talked about a couple of days ago,
really).

>  > MS MemoServ IGNORE {ADD,DEL,LIST}
>  
>  to help against this and cases of memo flooding, a
>  command may be put in to get rid of the memos of a
>  certain nick.

Or by being able to ignore a hostmask, maybe ....... it'd make things
more difficult for the flooder, at least.

>  > ** Add a way to send OperServ (and other?) commands from the shell
>  
>  This is defintely a big help. but how about just having a telnet
>  session with services, since that would facilitate an
>  easier access to commands, and is a seemingly good idea... I'm waiting
>  for people to shoot holes through this, since I
>  haven't really thought on it a lot.
>  

Telnetting to services ......... it'd be complicated at best, the way I'm
imagining it. I know it seems like Services is a server when it connects
to a network, but at its heart, it's really a client, since it's not set
up to actually accept connections -- it only initiates them. Perhaps
it'll be easier to do with the modularization in Services 5.0, but right
now, adding the server capabilities to Services looks like it would
require a bit more than a couple of new functions.