View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0003031unrealircdpublic2023-12-29 07:36
ReporterMuisje Assigned To 
Status feedbackResolutionopen 
OSAnyOS VersionAny 
Product Version3.2.5 
Summary0003031: Ability to hide Ulines from /Lusers
DescriptionI've been thinking which resulted the following idea of a feature.
It's purpose is to hide uline connections from lusers. This would make the counting more realistic besides Ulines are normally just bots so i doubt they should be counted as Users.

So my request is to have them not counted along in the lusers or atleast from non opers. Since they don't need to know.

Please feel free to let me know wether you think this would be a good idea or not with a reason please.
TagsNo tags attached.
3rd party modules


duplicate of 0003198 closed When using lusers, users from u:Lined servers appear 



2006-08-20 15:07

reporter   ~0012197

Last edited: 2006-08-20 15:09

I like this idea. It would save me the hassle of maintaining custom statistics services for my network. (Some of the features of those services, at least).

A list of servers somewhere, would be even better though. I have multiple non-ulined non-user servers that I dont want counted.


2006-08-20 17:42

reporter   ~0012198

Unlined bots/clients behave as normal users, they shouldn't be hidden. I object.


2006-08-20 19:07

reporter   ~0012200

Pinstrate, i'm not talking about UNLINED i'm talking about ULINED bots. And a good network makes sure only Services will be on ULINES. So in that case they should really be able to be hidden in the lusers.

I never saw a Services bot behave as a normal user.


2006-08-22 02:13

reporter   ~0012203

I agree, for similar reasons to JasonTik. It would also help correct some issues with SearchIRC and such showing a global count that includes services-bots. Quick, but fugly, way to go up in SearchIRC rankings would be to make 200 chanbots. Hopefully no-one has ever done so. otoh, I think has statistical filtering for networks that have usercounts that hardly fluctuate, for this or similar reasons.


2006-08-22 03:17

reporter   ~0012204

Last edited: 2006-08-22 03:39

Maybe the best way to implement is to let the end user decide wether or not they want to hide Ulined bots.

I request the add of the following configuration directive:
set::options::hide-ulines-from-lusers; or something shorter.

I think it would be good to exclude it from IRCOP's aswell, because they will most likely find out a way to see how many users are on ulines. (eg /map and then count up the uline numbers.)

In response to JasonTik's idea, i think it would be wrong to exclude real users... I doubt that will work without desyncs. :/


2006-08-22 14:04

reporter   ~0012209

I really like this idea, but only with the condition that it would be configurable in the config file with an option like:


2006-08-26 21:29

reporter   ~0012245

djGrrr , i like this idea alot... but i think it be best to have em set seperately..... such as this....

ulines {;
        options {
### OR ###;
        options {
            display yes;

something like that... although you would have to have it set on each server, it be a nice feature so that you can pick and choose the ulines you want hidden..


2007-04-19 04:49

reporter   ~0013601

Bump. Is this feasible or not?


2007-04-19 08:20

reporter   ~0013603

I agree with this but as a config setting.


2007-06-11 16:06

reporter   ~0014325

For now, I think it needs a careful hand and seen if it can be modularized (yes, I think it can), as a /lusers replacement, so moving it to 3rd party module wishlist


2007-06-11 16:12

reporter   ~0014326

I don't know if we should really wishlist command replacements, because IMO that's overkill especially with a small change such as this


2023-12-29 07:36

administrator   ~0023130

As mentioned on IRC by others, if you want to hide services in the "opers online" counts then just set them +H (hide oper status).
This does not affect the "global users" count though.

For LUSERS me and my predecessors had lots of trouble getting things right, it took many releases, it's so easy to make a counting mistake (yes, proper counting, duh!). It was a nightmare. It's mostly for that reason that nobody dared to touch the code again since. I'm still not enthusiastic about it, so i just keep this lingering -grin-.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2006-08-20 14:17 Muisje New Issue
2006-08-20 15:07 JasonTik Note Added: 0012197
2006-08-20 15:09 JasonTik Note Edited: 0012197
2006-08-20 17:42 pinstrate Note Added: 0012198
2006-08-20 19:07 Muisje Note Added: 0012200
2006-08-22 02:13 tabrisnet Note Added: 0012203
2006-08-22 03:17 Muisje Note Added: 0012204
2006-08-22 03:39 Muisje Note Edited: 0012204
2006-08-22 14:04 djGrrr Note Added: 0012209
2006-08-26 21:29 the0ry Note Added: 0012245
2007-01-12 17:17 syzop Relationship added duplicate of 0003198
2007-04-19 04:49 stskeeps Note Added: 0013601
2007-04-19 08:20 vonitsanet Note Added: 0013603
2007-04-27 03:11 stskeeps Status new => feedback
2007-06-11 16:05 stskeeps Relationship added child of 0003284
2007-06-11 16:06 stskeeps Note Added: 0014325
2007-06-11 16:12 Stealth Note Added: 0014326
2019-10-14 15:41 syzop Relationship deleted child of 0003284
2023-12-29 07:36 syzop Note Added: 0023130