Re: [Unity-irc3] Banning from the entire network, part two

[David Westley]

yeah ok I see your point but the ircd will eat more memory this way as it 
could have multiple bans of the same host and/or overlapping bans... what 
about completely discarding the lower level ban in favour of the higher level 
ban? I mean, it stands to reason that if the higher leveled server has more 
authority then its ban should be the ruling ban and all other bans should be 
removed.

/me wishes you luck :)

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Krueger <address@hidden>
To: "irc3 (Unity) public discussion" <address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:57:19 +0200
Subject: Re: [Unity-irc3] Banning from the entire network, part two

> David Westley <address@hidden> wrote on 2003-04-09 22:59:
> > so that if a level 3 ban 
> > for 5d exists and someone places a level 9 ban for 2d then it should change
> > the level 3 ban to a level 9 ban but still for 5d not 2d.
> I don't think so. This limits the ability for the level 9 server to decide
> about what it's doing. I mean, It's kinda frustrating if you set a ban for
> two
> days and some computer says, "well, ok, I take your authorization for level 9
> but I'll modify your commands because someone had the same idea earlier"...
> If you keep all bans on one host individually, high-leveled server get more
> authority, which is what we want.
> 
> Example:
>  - server1, level 1
>  - server9, level 9
> 
> server1 sets a ban on some host, say, phid.ae, with a duration of 30y. Now
> server9 notices spamming from host phid.ae and decides to set a ban with a
> duration of 2h. With your design, we'd now have a level 9 ban with a duration
> of 30y, which is not really what server9 intended.
> 
> 
> I stick with my design: when a ban expires, the other bans on the same mask
> stay intact.
> 
> In other news, I'm gonna try starting an RFC style document about our
> project.
> Wish me luck. ;)
> 
> Jan
>