0001410: /os forbid should take hosts and deny service usage from clients using them. Also add /ns dropforbidden to drop offending nicks

Notes
(0006294) Adam (administrator) 2012-11-01 22:59	Sorry, I sort of forgot this was here and had some time to glance at the tracker and saw it. So what I was thinking: /os forbid drop nick/chan/email/possibly some of the other things you said /os forbid host add/list/del to forbid usage of a specific host However I am wondering how useful this host ignore is with os_ignore, they would be pretty much doing the same thing... perhaps a config option on whether or not host forbids should tell the user they were forbidden or not? I wouldn't want to keep both os_ignore and os_forbid if both were doing nearly the same functionality.

(0006140) someone (reporter) 2012-04-11 21:24	Partially. /os ignore makes services ignore the user completely and it looks to the ignored client that there are no services at all/are down/hanging/netsplit not yet detected by ircd/... /os ignore would be totally fine, if one could decide (via config option (?)) to either ignore the matching clients OR make services respond with a "permission denied" and possibly the reason notice. I was thinking of/hoping for a "you are not permitted ..." notice, like people get when using a forbidden email address. Also the "drop offending nicks" feature is missing which would be awesome, as it would enable admins to actually excecute the forbidden (and ignored) rulesets. eg: why should some nick grabbers that are now being permanently ignored/got their email addresses permanently forbidden/... be able to keep the legitime nicks they grabbed, whey they are not able to use them anymore anyway.

(0006139) Adam (administrator) 2012-04-11 19:01	Doesn't /os ignore do this?

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2012-04-11 18:20	someone	New Issue
2012-04-11 19:01	Adam	Note Added: 0006139
2012-04-11 21:24	someone	Note Added: 0006140
2012-11-01 22:59	Adam	Note Added: 0006294

Relationships