Re: hostmangling in new ircd

On 5:11:29 25/08/2005 Philipp Kern <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 17:22 , Mrten wrote:

> >  if i, as a channel-op, want to report logs as evidence to a third
> >  party, i have to ask the admins for help to translate the mangled
> >  hostnames to real ones. do the admins really want to meddle in
> >  that?

> That's indeed a valid point.

> >  does dcc chat/ping/etc still work?
>
> Yep, because the IP is exchanged with the CTCP protocol between the
> two clients.

only after the receiving CTCP client has given permission i suppose? would
rather defeat the purpose of hostmasking otherwise.

> >  what does *the network* have to gain from hostmasking users?
> >  aren't we making it ourselves more difficult? aren't we making it
> >  chanops more difficult?
>
> No we aren't, except of the point you made above. The same IP gets
> the same cloak, you get exactly the same measures like before (like
> banning the whole ISP block), the hosts just look a bit more ugly.

i see that i have to ask one question per paragraph :)

depending of the level of masking installed, when a global ISP has
hostmasks like "IP.<country>.<ISP>.com", you'd lose the opportunity to ban,
say, all of turkey as well :)

extreme hostmasking ("[email protected]") reduces us (chanops at least)
to the level of having to ban each user at a time (or blocking all
registered users: "+b *.blitzed").

so, what *are* the arguments in favour?

Mrten.