Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

more advanced bans #818

Open
wilkowy opened this issue Jun 25, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@wilkowy
Copy link

commented Jun 25, 2019

This is feature request. I know it can be easily implemented with scripts, but I will leave the idea here.

Currently setting ban-type is used only for users with +k flag and for revenge-mode.
The suggestion is to reuse this setting for bans (not good, as it would in fact limit usefulness of bans), add another default/channel setting (same not good) or enhance the +ban command (best way imho) to cover a more sophisticated bans.

The idea is to separate ban mask to detection mask and real ban mask.
For example we want to add a ban to badnick!@, but the real ban will be put on this user's host according to its nick!ident@host filtered by ban-type or using the second ban-mask provided with +ban.
This would be most useful for nick (mostly)/ident bans. Why? To ban users we do not know their new host at first, so we put a ban detector on known nick/word and then ban host to stop them coming back with different nick.

The preferred way would be to enhance +ban command from current:
### +ban <hostmask> [channel] [%<XyXdXhXm>] [comment]
to for example:
### +ban <hostmask> [$detection-hostmask] [channel] [%<XyXdXhXm>] [comment]
Note the "$" prefix to distinguish this argument. Because "#", "+", "!" and "&" are reserved for channel prefixes, "%" is used for ban-time when parsing arguments and "@" or "*" can be used for comments there are not many special characters left and "$" is unusable in nicks (at least on IRCnet).

@wilkowy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 25, 2019

I've messed this up, sorry. The $detection-hostmask should be per ban setting of $ban-type. The hostmask should act as detection-mask if this $ban-type was provided in +ban. So it should be:
### +ban <hostmask> [$ban-type] [channel] [%<XyXdXhXm>] [comment]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.