Notice ban Script needed

De Kus · Post by **De Kus** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:28 pm

Alchera wrote:I prefer *!*user@*.domain myself, simply to be fair.

isnt fair either, because users from i.E. java chat will all be banned from same ISP. dont forget domain.host.com representats a single IP and as long its no bouncer with same vhost it will be only 1 ISP connection.

Alchera · Post by **Alchera** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:27 pm

What I was getting at was this (as an example):

* Enfield sets mode: +b *!*chindians@219.95.230.*

Only that particular user is banned. It takes into account cyber cafe's which the other method does not! I have bots in channels which are setup by users of cyber cafe's and banning an entire cyber for the error of one user is ludicrous! I also use wildcards when an actual host is shown (cybers only have non RDNS IP's).

I have found that using "nick!*@host.domain" or "nick!*user@*.domain" useless as that is the one thing a banned user will do, change nicks but they rarely change their user name (identd).

Smurff · Post by **Smurff** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:35 am

i used this:

putquick "MODE $dest +m" -next
utimer 40 [list pushmode $dest -m]

works fine.

to ban different types of hosts there are options in NoticeBan1.1 by Pulse.

thanks for the help

awyeah · Post by **awyeah** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:21 am

Alchera wrote:What I was getting at was this (as an example):
* Enfield sets mode: +b *!*chindians@219.95.230.*
Only that particular user is banned. It takes into account cyber cafe's which the other method does not! I have bots in channels which are setup by users of cyber cafe's and banning an entire cyber for the error of one user is ludicrous! I also use wildcards when an actual host is shown (cybers only have non RDNS IP's).

I have found that using "nick!*@host.domain" or "nick!*user@*.domain" useless as that is the one thing a banned user will do, change nicks but they rarely change their user name (identd).

These types of bans quicky fill up the banlists especially on larger channels, as you know flood bots have a tendency to change their nicks and idents quickly and randomly so I would suggest not to include idents or nick in the banmask, only the domain and/or host.

^DooM^ · Post by **^DooM^** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:50 am

My Bots used to lock the channel when the channel banlist was full It rarely triggered the locking script tho. I used *!*ident@*.domain.com bans on 99% of my scripts.

Alchera · Post by **Alchera** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:21 am

I use *!*ident@*.domain.com in all scripts without a drama. As for spam bots, I use a script I have especially written to cope with them. It bans consonant nicks/numerical idents on entry. As soon as they enter the channels are set +cmR, the ban set and the offender kicked. In the case of numerical idents my script emulates DALnet's ChanServ where a numerical ident like "h23f7f990@" will set a ban of *!*0*@*; the last digit in the ident else it sets *!*ident@*.domain.com, both the mode setting and ban are timed.

On average there are two innocent users per channel per 24 hr period that get banned, bot users are ignored.

Guvnor · Post by **Guvnor** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:21 am

by the way locking channel for single notice doesnt make much sense to me, it will be better if it lock on 3rd or 4th notice.

Post by **Sir_Fz** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:22 am

Guvnor wrote:by the way locking channel for single notice doesnt make much sense to me, it will be better if it lock on 3rd or 4th notice.

That can be done using allfloodprotection

Alchera · Post by **Alchera** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:43 pm

Guvnor wrote:by the way locking channel for single notice doesnt make much sense to me, it will be better if it lock on 3rd or 4th notice.

Alchera wrote:It bans consonant nicks/numerical idents on entry.

The reference was to spam bots. Normal flood controls apply for those twits that just like to attempt flooding channels.

PS: I'm amazed at how many of these idiots use registered nicks.

Linux · Post by **Linux** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:06 am

Guvnor wrote:by the way locking channel for single notice doesnt make much sense to me, it will be better if it lock on 3rd or 4th notice.

In a big channel if you allow 3/4 notices and then you want your bot to lock the channel, does this make any sence?

Post by **Sir_Fz** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:44 pm

What difference does it make if it's a big channel or not, locking on a single notice is not so useful as it's not necessary all the time.