home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
- From: dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren)
- Newsgroups: alt.irc
- Subject: Re: yes or no? (bot deopping)
- Message-ID: <85491@ut-emx.uucp>
- Date: 17 Dec 92 06:47:55 GMT
- References: <85220@ut-emx.uucp> <Bz7Lw3.IEq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec13.192502.3175@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
- Organization: Doug's House of Disco
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1992Dec13.192502.3175@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
- >In article <Bz7Lw3.IEq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
- >
- >>The /kick idea is interesting, but I'm not completely fond of it. An
- >>alternative (in the one chan-op scheme especially) would be to give /kick
- >>a few more teeth -- add an automatic ban as an after-effect of a kick.
- >
- >This would be a great (and easy) feature to implement in a client.
- >Don't clutter the server.
-
- Yes, but I could get a few bots flooding you real bad, so bad that while
- you are in fact ignoring them, but they start lagging you more and more,
- and more, and eventually you start missing pings. It's really quite easy
- to do ... (and I've seen it done ...)
-
- --
- ----------------------- \ Zippy says:
- Doug McLaren, \ YOW!!! I am having fun!!!
- DemoN on IRC \
- dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \
- -------------------------- /
-