View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001771 | unreal | ircd | public | 2004-04-30 22:55 | 2004-05-04 00:55 |
| Reporter | Foster7894 | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 3.2 | ||||
| Summary | 0001771: K:Line Priority Levels | ||||
| Description | I think that it'd be beneficial to be able to specify priority levels for bans/exceptions. Here's a good example: 1) We want to require users to either use the java client or a special script. So, we ban *@* with a priority of 1. 2) We create an exception for our script (ie S-*@*) and java and give it a priority of 2. 3) When we want to ban a user from the network, we issue the /kline command and use a priority of 3 to override the exception. Now, say *@*.aol.com can't connect at all - even though they may match the lower priority exception. | ||||
| Additional Information | Obviously, this introduces the problem of dynamic K:lines being used to override exceptions which were intended to protect admins. The solution to this problem would be to add something in the set block so that dynamic K:lines can't have a priority higher than x. That way, as long as exceptions for admins are higher than x, IRCops can't K:line them. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
This is what allow blocks are for. allow { ... hostname java@*; ip java@*; ... }; allow { ... hostname S-*@*; ip S-*@*; ... }; Then you just /kline like normal. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-04-30 22:55 | Foster7894 | New Issue | |
| 2004-04-30 23:18 |
|
Note Added: 0005965 | |
| 2004-05-04 00:55 | syzop | Status | new => closed |