View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001410Anope Development (1.9.x series)Nickservpublic2012-11-01 22:59
Reportersomeone Assigned To 
Status newResolutionopen 
Summary0001410: /os forbid should take hosts and deny service usage from clients using them. Also add /ns dropforbidden to drop offending nicks
DescriptionIt would be awesome, if one could /os forbid hosts so that matching clients would not be allowed to use services from those.

It would be even more awesome to have a command (/ns dropforbidden {NICK|EMAIL|HOST|HOSTLASTUSED|ALL}(?)) to drop all nicks offending the current /os forbid rulesets.

eg: drop all nicks that are/were last used from a forbidden host/domain.
eg: drop all nicks that were registered with a forbidden email-address/domain.
TagsNo tags attached.



2012-11-01 22:59

administrator   ~0006294

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.


2012-04-11 21:24

reporter   ~0006140


/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.


2012-04-11 19:01

administrator   ~0006139

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