home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!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: <85641@ut-emx.uucp>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 05:36:54 GMT
- References: <1992Dec13.192502.3175@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <85491@ut-emx.uucp> <1992Dec17.181404.17142@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
- Organization: Doug's House of Disco
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1992Dec17.181404.17142@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) 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 ...)
- >
- >How would a ban change that? Welcome to the non-sequitor hour on
- >alt.irc. If you see this done, I'd suggest that you write Scott's boss
- >and complain.
-
- Actually, I was referring to the benefits of a server-level ignore, as
- opposed to a client level ignore. It's not such a big deal when I'm
- using my clients on the workstations, but when I'm running slip and running
- a client at home, it makes a *big* difference ...
-
- The ban was another idea ... if you're gonna call us non-sequiter, please
- keep your facts straight ...
-
-
- --
- ----------------------- \ Zippy says:
- Doug McLaren, \ Hello, GORRY-O!! I'm a GENIUS from HARVARD!!
- DemoN on IRC \
- dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \
- -------------------------- /
-