Adding more pre-defined servers, as per file TODO

[gcarreno]

Hey there,

I'm including:

• DALnet
• EFnet
• IRCnet
• Undernet
• Quakenet

Cheers,
Gus

[SilverRainZ]

Thank for you contribuation!
Can you please provide the source of the newly added addresses? (Just in comment, not in code).

[SilverRainZ]

I tested these networks, some of them not works well:

• DALnet: OK
• EFnet:
  • TLS ON: Failed to connect to EFnet(irc.efnet.fr:6697): Peer failed to perform TLS handshake: The TLS connection was non-properly terminated.
  • TLS OFF: seems OK
• IRCnet
  • TLS ON: Failed to connect to IRCnet(irc.ircnet.com:6697): Peer failed to perform TLS handshake: The TLS connection was non-properly terminated.
  • TLS OFF: seems OK
• Undernet
  • TLS ON: No response
  • TLS OFF: seems OK
• Quakenet:
  • TLS ON: No response
  • TLS OFF: seems OK

Since srain will choose 6697 as TLS port by default when no port is given, you should provide the correct TLS port or reomve the line tls = true.

[gcarreno]

Hey there,

Can you please provide the source of the newly added addresses? (Just in comment, not in code).

I started with these 2:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat
• https://www.mirc.co.uk/servers.html

Then from the mIRC one I went to their official pages, found the Servers page and copied their listing.
From the Wikipedia one I picked the big ones listed above the "Timeline" paragraph.

In terms of TLS, you are right, I need to fix that. I wasn't sure if any of them had it. I just assumed that if they were operating today, they would have the latest security up. Looks like another case of "Assumptions are the mother of all f*ck ups (tm)" :)

I'll remove TLS from all but DALnet then.

Cheers,
Gus

[SilverRainZ]

IMO, An unencrypted TCP connection is dangerous today, I hope that we can provide TLS port as possible.

Beside, I think we does not need so many boackup addresses because the irc.* domain is usually a load balance of others.

[gcarreno]

Beside, I think we does not need so many backup addresses because the irc.* domain is usually a load balance of others.

I agree with this and struggled if I would include the full list on each network's site.

I then thought that a list of them with countries would make sense if you want to connect to a server physically near you.

What do you think?

[gcarreno]

IMO, An unencrypted TCP connection is dangerous today, I hope that we can provide TLS port as possible.

This makes much sense.

I remember that some of the servers mentioned SSL near them, so I'll revisit the listings and add the 6697 port explicitly.

I was also thinking about adding 6667 to all the others and turning tls=true on that group.

What do you think?

[SilverRainZ]

I then thought that a list of them with countries would make sense if you want to connect to a server physically near you.

Yes, this make sense, so keep these addresses is also fine.

I remember that some of the servers mentioned SSL near them, so I'll revisit the listings and add the 6697 port explicitly.

Thanks, please add them.

I was also thinking about adding 6667 to all the others and turning tls=true on that group.

Why? 6667 is an non-TLS port in IRC protocol, turning on it only cause error.

[gcarreno]

Why? 6667 is an non-TLS port in IRC protocol, turning on it only cause error.

Ahh, ok got it. I'll not do that then. I'll leave it with no port.

I'll do the 2 things you agreed on your last comment and then ping you again.

[gcarreno]

All done, ready for your review.

[SilverRainZ]

So no one of the remaining server provides TLS port?

[gcarreno]

So no one of the remaining server provides TLS port?

I've gone through all the network's official server pages and these are the ones they mention having SSL/TLS.

So YES :)

[SilverRainZ]

LGTM