This is the new home of the egghelp.org community forum.
All data has been migrated (including user logins/passwords) to a new phpBB version.

For more information, see this announcement post. Click the X in the top right-corner of this box to dismiss this message.

Would you recommend using wide ban?

Old posts that have not been replied to for several years.
Locked
G
Gothic-Angel
Op
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 9:46 pm

Would you recommend using wide ban?

Post by Gothic-Angel »

Well yesterday our channel, which I keep +l to 10 got join/part flooded, on the flood the bots placed a LARGE amount of bans, some of which were wide and causes some of our ops to get banned. Im thinking that if wide ban is removed, then it will just be more intense for the bot's to handle. So maybe I should reduce the ban time? Im sure other user's may have got locked out because of it.

So what are some recommendation's as what I should do? Just lower ban time, I also had MC_8's anti-fly running it placed a hell of a lot of sticky bans of them which was pretty nice, however I dont think I want to keep em as a sticky-ban any seeing as the banlist could get quite full.

With sticky bans the other op's could not remove the bans in case the channel got full and it would be locked. :o

So basically what I'm asking is what settings would you (anyone who uses sentinel) recommend for maximum protections? 8)
Top
User avatar
slennox
Owner
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:00 pm
Contact:
Contact slennox

Post by slennox »

Maximum protection involves disabling sl_ban altogether, setting long lock times and letting the ops come up with the bans. In return for this protection, you sacrifice convenience.

For your situation I'd suggest disabling sl_wideban and let the ops come up with more appropriate permanent bans following a flood.
Top
G
Gothic-Angel
Op
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 9:46 pm

Post by Gothic-Angel »

The only problem is a lot of the op's are not "active" the channel isnt huge it average's about 40 people spikes at 70. Id really like my bots to be all that im relying on in case of a flood. Which happens every now and then.
Top
User avatar
slennox
Owner
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:00 pm
Contact:
Contact slennox

Post by slennox »

sentinel.tcl is not a replacement for active ops. You can probably rely on it to take care of a flood while they're away if the settings are set in a reasonable way, but you can't expect it to react as a human would (which is a mixed blessing).

If no ops are around and there is a flood, sentinel.tcl will keep locking the channel and setting bans. If the flooding is small or involves clients with the same idents/domains, it should sort itself out. But if the banlist becomes full, it won't unlock the channel at all. A full banlist is a serious sitation -- the script can no longer ban flooders and the only way to keep them out is to keep the channel locked. In this event, human intervention is REQUIRED to decide what should be done.

If your ops are never around it could be that your channel is locked until the bans expire. This isn't sentinel.tcl's fault -- it's just trying to keep the channel secure in the most reliable way possible (i.e. locked with +mi).

Further improvements to the "intelligence" of the banning system are possible. For example, the script might ban *!*@*.nasty.com if many flooders come from nasty.com, but it won't ban x*x!*@* if many flooders have nicks like xIFEbix, xH347Fx, xUI94cbx, and so on. I'm afraid I don't have time to implement this sort of thing and deal with all its potential side-effects. In any case, the wideban function in the next version does work a little more smoothly, but is still limited to idents/domains.
Top
Locked

Return to “Archive”