Re: hostmangling in new ircd

On 8/25/05, Andy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:47:54AM +1000, Andryan Gunawan wrote:
> > On 8/25/05, David Leadbeater <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24 Aug 2005, at 11:01, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > > If the mask were converted from base 16 to base 36 then it would be
> > > > smaller.  4 characters instead of 8.  IPs would be 17 characters
> > > > long instead of 29.  Worth it?
> > >
> > > I think so, I'd rather the host was a short as possible so the mangled
> > > hosts don't look too ugly.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could take the vowels out (or at least 4 of them - if my maths
> > > is correct) so the resulting hosts look less like words (in English
> > > anyway..).
> >
> > How do ops ban users from certain ISP if they can't see a pattern to ban on?
> 
> What is the problem with banning *.some.isp.com when you see
> blitzed-w52g1.some.isp.com?

That one is fine, well most of the time. What happens when you need to
ban several hosts on the same ISP but some other legit from same ISP
from different location (perhaps normally it would include the
location name in the hostname but got replaced up to the domain name)?