X ban/unban Script.

samhain · Post by **samhain** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:12 am

Hi I do not know why TCL coders haven't made a script yet which has the ability to punish an user through X, i mean on advertise/flood/spam/invite/badwords/badnick the bot bans through X and then removes it through X through a setting of a time in the TCL file.... it's a very nice idea to use undernet X because X bans can be maximum 300 and on undernet if the eggdrops bans manually then the banlist becomes full after 45 bans so please get me such kind of a script I really need it.

Post by **Sir_Fz** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:05 am

AllProtection4.6b7.

samhain · Post by **samhain** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:22 am

what's there is it the script I need I mean I have tried that TCL but it only works manually does it work through X?

Post by **Sir_Fz** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:27 am

Yes, version 4.6b7 supports banning through X when banlist is full.

# Do you want the bot to ban through services when banlist is full? (0: no ; 1: yes)
set banthruX(do) 0

# If banthruX is 1, set the command here to ban through services:
set banthruX(cmd) "privmsg X :ban %chan %ban %btime %level %reason"

# If banthruX is 1, set here the default level to be used on all channels
lappend ap:udefs {ap:level 75}

I haven't got any feedback yet on whether this feature is working or not so if you try it and tell us that'd be great

samhain · Post by **samhain** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:38 am

sure I'm gonna try this, and where do I set the maximum number of bans in the eggdrop so that the number I set in the eggdrop is considered as the banlist full in the eggdrop.

Alchera · Post by **Alchera** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:41 pm

eggdrop.conf:

# Set here the maximum number of bans you want the bot to set on a channel.
# Eggdrop will not place any more bans if this limit is reached. Undernet
# currently allows 45 bans, IRCnet allows 30, EFnet allows 100, and DALnet
# allows 100.
set max-bans 30

silverboy · Post by **silverboy** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:34 am

I haven't got any feedback yet on whether this feature is working or not so if you try it and tell us that'd be great

it works pretty well, but after the chan banlist got full i found the bot was pretty slow in banning via X. but it does work

Zircon · Post by **Zircon** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:18 am

Hi all

The feature of banning through X on Undernet is completely functionnal, i confirm. By the way, in eggdrop.conf, i set max-bans to 0, so all the bans can be made through X even if the banlist isnt full.

Althougt banning through X is slower than before, coz AllProtection kick the offender first, and after send the ban command to X. Since banning through X makes the offender being kicked automatically by X, it may be better and faster to send only one command which is the ban, instead of kick + ban.

Example :

[19:08] <Zircon> ban Offender!*@* OUT 2400 499
[19:08] #culture: mode change '+b Offender!*@*' by X!cservice@undernet.org
[19:08] Offender kicked from #culture by X: (Zircon) OUT

Is it possible to change the behavior of the banning process when it s made through X, so only the ban command is used, insted of Kick then Ban ?

Thanks Sir_Fz for this Great Script

iamdeath · Post by **iamdeath** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:54 am

samhain either you use X or eggdrops bans they're the same because on Undernet channel banlist is max of 45 so it doesnt matter if X can hold 300 bans after 45 bans X wont be able to set a ban on the active bans it will only kick. Using X or eggdrop bans does'nt matter, what I will suggest is to use Eggdrops bans because it will be faster than sending request to X and then X proceeds.

Thanks
iamdeath

Zircon · Post by **Zircon** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:44 am

Hello iamdeath

X isn't affected by the the limit of 45 bans, means that even if they are already 45 active bans, X can still add 300 others bans. So in total, u can put 345 bans, 300 through X, and 45 by regular users. The limit of 45 concern only bans not made through X.

iamdeath · Post by **iamdeath** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:31 am

I beg to refuse you on that sir, please check and then let me know. I am sure about my statement.

Thanks

silverboy · Post by **silverboy** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:32 am

after 45 bans X wont be able to set a ban on the active bans it will only kick

X bans are also made via the chan banlist and if banned via X chanbanlist can hold 300 bans...

iamdeath · Post by **iamdeath** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:51 am

I do accept that X can hold 300 bans I am not refusing that, what I am saying is that when channels active banlist will reach 45 then X will not be able to ban the user because it will already exceed the number of allowed bans. So what happen will be, X will only kick it won't be able to place a ban it will only Kick. Yes, in X's database that ban will exsist but as soon as the channels banlist get lower than 45 then X will be able to set ban.

Read this:

Zagreb.HR.Eu.UnderNet.org u2.10.12.10 dioswkgx biklmnopstvrD bklov
WHOX WALLCHOPS WALLVOICES USERIP CPRIVMSG CNOTICE SILENCE=15 MODES=6 MAXCHANNELS=30 MAXBANS=45 NICKLEN=12 are supported by this server
MAXNICKLEN=15 TOPICLEN=160 AWAYLEN=160 KICKLEN=160 CHANNELLEN=200 MAXCHANNELLEN=200 CHANTYPES=#& PREFIX=(ov)@+ STATUSMSG=@+ CHANMODES=b,k,l,imnpstrDd CASEMAPPING=rfc1459 NETWORK=UnderNet are supported by this server

Thanks
iamdeath

Zircon · Post by **Zircon** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:36 pm

Hello iamdeath

I m positive about what i said, u can have up to 345 active bans at the same time, max of 45 bans done by users, plus max 300 bans done through X. X as a service, isnt limited by MAXBANS, which apply only to bans done bu regular OPs. I tested many times, and u can do the same. Right now i m having 50 active bans, 45 that i put myself, and 5 that i put through X.

Alchera · Post by **Alchera** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:45 pm

A simple solution is to contact an IRCOp/Administrator of the Network you both apparently share and settle this once and for all.

These forums deal specifically with eggdrop and Tcl not IRCD's and their "quirks".