Why Are Canadian Sympatico Users Being Banned On EFNet? 107
An anonymous reader asks: "After being away from IRC for over a year, changing ISPs and moving my physical self to another apartment, tonight I tried to get back on EFnet. With a brand new IP, and a brand new computer, I discovered that all over EFnet, all channels related to Linux are banning all Canadian Sympatico users, this includes high speed customers, dial up users, and business users. In fact, the ban is quite severe and bans the entire sympatico.ca domain. I've tried to message several operators in #linux, #linuxhelp, and #slackware, but nobody is responding. What's going on?"
Odds are (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody on Sympatico was being such an ass when a ChanOp had a bad day, managed to get a different IP, so anything from Sympatico was blocked.
Hmmm... banning subnets... where have we heard that before?
Re:Odds are (Score:1)
It is highly likely the person who posted this story didn't have identd up.
It's a protest... (Score:2, Funny)
This all stems from the fact that the Canadian government has been in negotiations to sell British Columbia to Microsoft since 1999.
Re:It's a protest... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's a protest... (Score:1)
Re:Probably because the ISP is lazy... (Score:1)
As such, I'd imagine that if, when you called, you asked them to take stronger actions against those who do damage to the symaptico.ca name, their representative would say: "Huh? What's IRC? Have you plugged your modem in, sir?"
Re:Probably because the ISP is lazy... (Score:2)
Yes, and if the IRCOps got a similar response, then that's why the block is in place.
If an ISP isn't willing to take action to curb malicious use by it's customers, it deserves to be blocked.
Disclaimer: I work for a small ISP in Canada, and have dealt with this sort of thing before (although with email, not IRC.)
Re:Probably because the ISP is lazy... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Probably because the ISP is lazy... (Score:1)
Re:Probably because the ISP is lazy... (Score:1)
And while Americans don't like racism, we also don't like limiting someone's right to speak their mind and have their own oppinions. So as much as we despise the KKK and their ilk, there's little we can do about silencing them without abolishing freedom of speech. Try as we might to educate them about people of other races and how they aren't the worthless bunch of scum racists make them out to be, some people refuse to accept this, and always will.
I hate to break this to you... (Score:1)
Yes, we do. Massachusetts is not a proper sample set of data, sorry. Americans love guns. Hell, I have four and sleep with one under my pillow.
Granted, if Americans were supposed to own guns they whoulda made a Constitutional Amendment or something guaranteeing us the right to keep and bear arms.
same thing from online.no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:5, Insightful)
*.no is getting banned from more and more channels on EFNet. That is not very strange, when you consider that online.no doesn't take IRC-abuse complaints very seriously. The same goes for many other norwegian ISP's.
As long as norwegian kiddiots act as they do, and the same goes for the canadian kiddiots, one cannot expect channel operators to take heed of one or two good seeds among the thousands of bad ones.
If you are that desperate to join a certain channel, buy yourself a server somewhere, or get a shell-account from a friend - so that you can bounce of that and onto the IRC-network of your choice. One moment though - make sure that friend of yours is a _Friend_ and not someone that allows everybody to get accounts on his box - or that IP is sure to be banned from several channels as soon as the first kiddie appears.
Oh, and "shut up a few noisemakers"
Now, how would you solve that problem? Please, do explain, in detail.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2, Insightful)
I did indeed generalize, and I did indeed make the problem larger than it is. But the main point stands. If you're running, say, #usa or whatever - and three out of four norwegians that join the channel acts like idiots. What is the natural thing to do? Ban the damn country - of course.
The same goes if 3 out of 4 users from one ISP acts like idiots.
Norway unfortunately have far too many 13-year-olds online on IRC, which does reflect negatively on us. Our country get banned from far too many channels. I fully understand and support those that ban us however.
Not everyone has the possibility to get an account on another computer, not everyone has the opportunity to pick and choose their ISP. Me, i work in the industry, and would have no problems finding a host that would allow me access, but you're missing the point...
IRC is a priviledge, not a right. If you're having problems getting onto IRC, its YOUR problem, nobody elses. Maybe its elitist, in my eyes - you don't have a _right_ to join any channel, any network, nor a _right_ to join any channel. Its a priviledge, and it may be revoked for whatever reason those that run the channel finds appropriate. Wheter YOU find it appropriate is quite irrelevant.
I think a have a fairly good idea about how much noise a "few" noisemakers can generate, yes! My point is that this is (to me) a completely unacceptable approach for controlling noise. On my list of really bad ideas, it's right up there with reducing SPAM by blocking all mail from Korea and China.
If I don't want to receive email from those countries, then I block them. Which I've done on several on my accounts. I wouldn't implement it on a mailserver-wide though.
Why would _I_ want to receive any mail from Korea or China? If people I know there want to send me email, they may ask me to give them a shellaccount on one of my machines, which they can send their mail from.
I really don't care enough about this to apply by brain to that problem. All I was saying was that I'd rather not hang out on a channel where thinks that blocking ~70% of all Norwegians is an acceptable solution to the noise control problem.
Don't do that then. I'm sure you won't be missed. You're getting irritated because you're blocked, but nobody else really cares about it.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2)
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:1)
Here's the silver lining though, these assholes are doing a very good job of segragating themselves from the rest of us...let them, good riddance to ignorance.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2)
There's an additional benefit, though. Now that the elitist assholes and the complete idiots are segregating themselves onto "cooler" channels (IRC and IM, respectively), usenet is actually becoming useful again.
You've obviously never run an IRC channel... (Score:1)
Was this elitism? Hell no, one of our most beloved operators was based out of Norway and another spent half the year in Mexico... This was done simply because the channel would've been unusable to the vast majority of visitors do to the hourly (not exagerating) visits by flood bots. What other option did we have? We tried selectively banning subnets and ISPs, but it didn't work!
On Undernet one can be invited through a channel ban, so individuals who wanted to access the channel still had some options...
You still haven't answered as to what your solution would be. Instead you just whine and call the operators names and say you're better off not associating with them. Mayhaps they're better off not associating with you with an attitude like that? You remind me of the guy who cried to us in the help channel that he was banned from #Ottowa, and that obviously must be illegal since he lived in #Ottowa, so he wanted a Network Op to go remove the ban...
I'll give you the same explanation we gave users who would send us a
Re:You've obviously never run an IRC channel... (Score:2)
that beeing said, your signature (below) sums up my feelings about these wide bans quite nicely.
You don't act like it (Score:1)
Re:You don't act like it (Score:2)
I was stunned when I read the real technical reason why abusers can't just be banned -- twenty five bans per channel is all you get? Something needs to change on the technical side, then, not on the "whiny lamers who complain that they can't get onto channel #xyz because a few people from their domain/country pissed us off once" side.
I completely recognize the challenges faced by the average IRC channel. IRC is, by design, a public interface, so keeping out someone who's determined to get in is difficult. I understand that banning thousands or tens of thousands of users/IPs/whatevers can be cumbersome for the humans involved and painful for the machines who have to parse the lists whenever someone wants in, but please, 25 bans and you're done?
Why can't the EFnet IRC daemons automatically ban just the IP address where massive floods come from (massive meaning more than a few hundred lines -- you shouldn't be punished for accidentally pasting the output from "select * from user;" apart from the brutal tongue lashings from your fellowes :)? Or even a subnet? More importantly, even if nothing else could be changed about EFnet's software, why oh why can't people be "whitelisted" back in?
This kind of thing probably wouldn't annoy people so much if they'd at least get a response from a channel operator or an explanation from the server itself. To simply ignore someone from a specific domain, specifically inquiring (in a polite fashion) about gaining access to your channel, is rude and infuriating. I know, for every ten "polite inquiries" you receive, nine of them are probably from l33t skript kiddi3z trying to smooch their way back in to make your life hell, but such is the way of the IRC channel operator's life.
I've dealt with my share of nuisances, but then again I've never run into a cap on the number of bans I can apply either (admittedly, I don't use EFnet, so it could just be a difference in IRC daemon software or something). It's a bitch, but that's what I get for donning the cap of a channel op.
I don't mean to insult or offend, here; I'm just seriously trying to offer insight into why people get so damned angry about stuff like this. I probably wouldn't get too irritated if I were suddenly banned as the result of a mass-ban. I'd probably try to get in contact with somebody who might be able/willing to help, engage them in conversation if they're willing to talk, and go away if they're not. I know it's hard for both sides -- hell, I bet the abusive ones are annoyed too (*grin*) -- but the whole IRC thing would probably work a bit more smoothly if people weren't always so eager to switch into Complete and Utter Bastard(tm) mode.
Re:You don't act like it (Score:1)
If one in every hundred people (that's quite many, really) walking into a given store started knocking down shelves, throwing water balloons, spraypainting everything red, and generally making it impossible for everyone else to shop, you bet they'd close down that store.
That is, assuming they for some reason couldn't set up better security or do something else to stop such insane behavior. Apperently, in the analogous case on EFNet, they can't. It's 25 bans or nothing.
With the rest of your post I agree. The real problem is indeed a technical one. 25 bans is not enough to allow fine-grained access control, particularly if they can't be overridden. Given this, the ops are stuck between letting the troublemakers in or banning whole countries. And innocent users suffer the consequences.
Now, unless we actually find someone here who can do something about these technical issues, why don't we just conclude that the whole thing sucks, and leave it at that?
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:1)
On my list of really bad ideas, it's right up there with reducing SPAM by blocking all mail from Korea and China.
If I don't want to receive email from those countries, then I block them. Which I've done on several on my accounts. I wouldn't implement it on a mailserver-wide though. Why would _I_ want to receive any mail from Korea or China? If people I know there want to send me email, they may ask me to give them a shellaccount on one of my machines, which they can send their mail from.
um.. I agree about blocking, but if you've blocked their email's they can't exactly email you and ask for a shell account now can they?
As a question how would you recomend someone contacting you. I don't usualy give out my phone or address, likewise I sure don't give out my fax. Any ideas?
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2)
With braindead security ideas like that, I sincerely hope you don't work for my ISP.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that sounds about right to me.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2)
What?
I thought the whole point of getting access from an ISP was that you had access to the resources on the WWW. Now, I can understand the politics behind not wanting to have to continually ban a few, but suggesting someone out there might go find resources elsewhere just to use something most others could use without problem?
It's a double edged sword, I tell ya.....
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:1)
internet = irc + www + ftp + ssh + telnet + etc...
p.s. the reason nothing is capitalized here is that slashdot does not like postings that contain a large number of capitalized letters. quote:
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:2)
Re:same thing from online.no (Score:1)
Solicits a question... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Anyone who gets posted to slashdot and hangs out on IRC probably has enough techie friends that one of them would be willing to host such a service.
So, a better ask-slashdot might be:
How do I route around draconian ban-by-subnet IRC policies?
Philosophers ask WHY. Engineers ask HOW.
Re:Solicits a question... (Score:1, Funny)
Accounting majors ask HOW MUCH and Liberal Arts majors ask....
Would you like fries with that?
Re:Solicits a question... (Score:2)
IMO screen + bitchx is a much better solution.
*sigh* It's called a bouncer (Score:2)
http://mind.riot.org/muh/
Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:4, Informative)
Blame it on the kiddies. If it gets too noisy due to a single country/ISP, then the only logical solution is to ban that country/ISP.
In addition, EFNet#linux and other EFNet channels are infamous for beeing non-friendly and not very helpfull. You would do much better using Openprojectsnet or whatever its named right now. Much more friendly.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1)
Now, most EFNet servers ban bots. Some allow them, as long as they're not rogue. Now, what kind of problems can one expect if one uses such a bot? Well, we're using one on EFNet#norge, or used to use one. We called it "Norvoice" - and made #norge moderated.
To get voice, you had to apply for voice, with an email. We would 'accept' the application, an email was sent out with a password, which you had to reply to / give the password to norvoice for the account to be activated.
Each account had certain hostmasks associated with it.
Now the problem started. People wanted hostmasks to be added. People claimed to be other people. People forgot their passwords. People changed email addresses. People wanted voice immediately and started harassing the ops for it. (With 400-600 people on a channel, guess what kind of NOISE that generated). People didn't understand the system. People didn't want to give out their email address. People didn't want to be "registered".
And, "improve the systems capability to deal with anonymous assholes" isn't possible when you're not the one running the damn network. chanops have to use the features that are available to them. If features isn't available, then tough luck. Then one uses the features that works - namely banning ISP's. Its a solution. And, even better, its a solution that WORKS.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a good example from your side. Killing people is quite different from refusing someone access.
Why doesn't the US let anyone that wants enter their country? Isn't that _unfair_?
Why doesn't Canada let anyone that wants enter their country? Isn't that _unfair_?
Why doesn't Norway let anyone that wants enter their country (well, we almost do *sigh*)? Isn't that unfair?
And so forth.
No, its not unfair.
On IRC, on the internet - you can even start your own irc-server, or your own irc-channel, if you do not like the alternatives you have, or you're denied access to other peoples resources.
booohooo, i feel SO sorry for those that are refused. Booohoooo.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:3, Insightful)
i could go on, but i think most people see where i'm going.
based on your comments on this story, i used to think you probably just a bit immature. reading the comment above i now see that you're just plain stupid!
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:2)
Actually, you're just not well educated about the issue at hand.
You didn't even read the post you answered to. I didn't claim that the US denies entry to all norwegians. However, they are quite strict against certain other nationalities. Of course, there are exceptions - but EFNet supported +e (exception) a while ago. Not sure if they do it anymore though.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1)
No, I've read all your posts on this thread arcade, and you are the one not making sense. You are attempting to justify your actions when really, all it is is that you want IRC to be a happy little land where everyone behaves according to your rules, and you don't want to really put forth any effort to accomodate opposing viewpoints. It is elitist, which you seem to acknowledge, but you're trying to say that that is okay and everyone else is elitist too. Bah.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1)
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1)
Translation: I'm a whiny luser who's too much of an asshole to understand the difference between Rights and privliges. I'm under the delusion that IRC (Much like inter-network routing) is a working protocol and not a horrendus kludge. Also, my mother dresses me funny.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:1)
booohooo, i feel SO sorry for those that are refused. Booohoooo.
I gave up on IRC years ago, because of crap like this. This is a perfect example of the attitude/mindset of the average IRC user, elitist assholes whom were never helpful enough to be worth the trouble.
There are tonnes of alternatives out there, use them and be happy.
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose problems like this contribute to the growing list of ISP policies and practice against power users, static IP addresses, domain hosting, bandwidth limits, etc. To protect networks from being abused and banned, might we expect to see even stricter ISP controls (and decreased privacy) in the future, such as expanding the current lack of support for Linux to actually banning the use of Linux and other unsupported systems?
Re:Canada is infamous for its script-kiddies. (Score:2)
I've never heard of this reputation -- but sympatico.ca was one of the first domains that I've ever summarily banned from any network.
I've detected repeated hack attempts and port scans coming from sympatico.ca. After sending abuse reports via email to sympatico and receiving no response, I just decided that I'd be beter off not allowing any traffic from sympatico.
Is it fair? no...but what's the alternative?
Broadband Relays (Score:2)
I think that the rise in 24 hour connected broadband access by the masses has given rise to 24 hour connected relays that script kiddies from other countries may utilize.
Judging by the large number of formmail.pl attempts that my servers get, QWest (aka USWest) gets my vote for most (infectiously) deployed proxy servers out there. .cn domains (of course they might not be remote controlled) come next, then South America, and finally Canada.
I have noticed that the spammers are trying harder to stay under the radar more lately. A few months ago, the hosts they infected with their relay software would spam thousands of targets a day. Now they seem to distriute the load a bit more, returning after a few days to a week to try to not look so obviously infected.
IRC Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Channel politics are flakey at the best of time, all it takes is some idiot in a country to say summat wrong to a chanop and there banned. Another widespred ban on few networks is *.aol.com, as people on technical channels dont belive that "technology wise" people could possibly use AOL. It's these generalisations that end up with domain bans due to a few users spoiling it for the rest.
As for banning ISPs, all it takes is a few "scriptkiddies" to come onto a technical channel with there MP3 scripts and l33tsp34k to annoy a few ChanOps and boom...perma-ban
For further note, i am a Chanop on various channels on the HashNet network, and yes people do get domain banned for stupid reasons. Maybe this will just give you more of a insight.
Re:IRC Politics (Score:1, Flamebait)
Some domains seem to contain more assholes then others. AOL users are clueless, braindead and stupid. No not really, but the ones who keep asking stupid questions in caps in bad english and don't listen to answers are. The silent ones you never notice.
For some reason a lot of the newbies seem to presume that noone in the channel has anything better to do then hold their hands. What they seem to forget is that they are not alone.
A well operated channel has rules to make life bearable. No color, no requests, no away messages whatever. If people then pull tricks to evade these rules there is really only 1 workable solutation. Domain wide ban.
The solution perhaps would be to create somekind of authenticated irc version. I believe MS is working on something like that. Personally I rather live with banning a few domains.
Is there any other way to operate a channel? So far the discussion doesn't seem to have listed one.
The biggest offenders: .ro, .ca, .no and .mx (Score:4, Informative)
Same on DALnet (Score:3, Informative)
So there is a reason for it, though I do agree it is a bit severe.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
This is so freaking true, I couldn't have said it better myself!
here we go politics (Score:2, Interesting)
*!~*1@*.*
*!~*2@*.*
*!~*3@*.*
*!~*4@*.*
*!~*5@*.*
*!~*6@*.*
*!~*7@*.*
*!~*8@*.*
*!~*9@*.*
these bans are to stop a set of what looks like some type of automated scripts finding trojan'd and wingate type machines to join the channel and spew two lines off garbage and part.
optonline.net is the only massive ban enforced in #linuxhelp due to constant trollage.
Change ISPs. (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you inquire in the newsgroup can.internet.highspeed about a good ISP in your area, I'm sure Bob Carrick will point you towards his excellent ISP website.
If you're wondering why iStop doesn't offer 3.5mbit residential atm, it's because Bell raised the price for all new lines, and iStop decided they'd rather stop offering the service for new customers than charge old customers way less than what they charge new customers. Ralph Doncaster, owner of iStop, has said that he fully expects Bell Nexxia to once again offer the lower prices for 3.5mbit lines, so he'll be able to offer it again in the future.
Re:Change ISPs. (Score:1)
Looks like he's up to to his favourite university games too (he got in hot water at Acadia for network mischief): [usenet] [google.com] `AIDS and gays conflict with Ralph's religion'? I never noticed any religion in him deeper than lucre (although of course people can change, libel-deflecting disclaimers etc).
Re:Why are N users being banned on N-net? (Score:1)
Try a bit of elbow grease, so to speak (Score:2)
A lazy but otherwise good Op is almost as bad as a regular bad Op.
haha (Score:1)
*.at, *.mx, *.nz, *.tw, *.nl, *.no, *.si, *.br, *.gov, *.ca, *.tr, *.au, *.ro
Wide enough bans? These bans are mostly because ppl come in and claim we took 'their' channel, when we have been there for many years. Perhaps they have their nets confused.
*sigh* tell me about it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, what I certainly think might be nice is to have an RBL-like system somewhere that scans for open proxies and automatically blacklists them. When your server recieves a connection, it just sticks
Re:*sigh* tell me about it. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there's not really much you can do about this. Some channels have bots that scan for open proxies when you join, but generally by the time this scan is complete the spam/crapflood has already taken place.
Also, not all of these are open proxies. You'd be amazed how many compromised windows hosts there are out there (what with code red 2 leaving cmd.exe laying around and all) that end up running proxies on oddball ports or even specially made IRC crapflood drones. Again, not much you can do about this (other than bitch out the sysadmin at the other end, who if they haven't noticed and corrected the situation by now probably doesn't care).
Is Slashdot a failure? (Score:1)
Why I ask that question is I want people to look at the rating system of Slashdot. Do valuable comments usually get modded up? I believe so. And the trolls, the annoyances get modded down.
Now, let's apply this in real time. Let's apply this to IRC. I know, it sounds flawed, so you need someone (with integrity) at the top to select the first moderators. And users of IRC would have points based on what they say. This could be run by a bot, or whatever. Insightful, and intelligent readers and posters (good grammar, non-offensive language, etc.) would get 'modded up'. Script kiddies get modded down.
Also, channels should ALWAYS be moderated. A moderation bot can demoderate the fools. I find this far more effective than bans and kicks. Usually, there's an auto-rejoin feature that I'm sure you're all aware. Kick
But, you presume guilt. You make people apply for a nick and auto-voice, and suddenly, there's a lot tighter control. One has to register to use this community. It becomes a priviledge.
As for the script kiddies... well, they're harmless. Auto
Re:Is Slashdot a failure? (Score:1)
Official Response from #linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Official Response from #linux (Score:1)
nataku on @#niagara
nataku using lik-m-aid.ca.us.blitzed.org the CANDY that pours
nataku has identified for this nick
nataku has been idle 5mins 26secs, signed on Wed Oct 30 10:20:27
nataku End of
God Bless cogeco and their un canadian address!
better than that NFLS-150.182.83.on.home.ca
(Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada)
They spelt out your location for a good year or two for anyone to know it.
#linux policy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:#linux policy (Score:1, Informative)
--- NoHaXoR sets ban on *!*@*.br
--- You have been kicked from #linux by NoHaXoR (banned: perm Sorry, too many problems with Brazilian users perm)
And you guys say your rules are not "draconian". I think that banning an entire country is just plain wrong, and banning a country with such a big number of linux users like Brazil is a shame. We do have a lot of script kiddies, but hey, so does the USA or any other country with a considerable number of internet users. The channel is yours and there is nothing I can do about it. But such a rude policy send away many valuable linux users.
Re:#linux policy (Score:2, Informative)
As a result of such banning practices, Ive quitted using IRC in the first place. Most of my discussions are through yahoo messenger, newsgroups and mailing lists. IRC's technology, or at least its operators' mindsets arent keeping up with the technology....
And please dont give me I'm not running an ident server. I tried various ident settings, fake and real, and even tried using a personally-registered domain.. but either they ban blocks of IP or reverse domain resolutions dont work for personal domains unless you fork out $600 per month for a business internet account. Go check out other channels related to linux and ask the people in there why they arent in your channel
Re:#linux policy (Score:1)
Then what, pretell, is your solution? I see lots of people crying about how large bans are a sin, but no solutions to the problem offered.
I ran into this two years ago... (Score:1, Interesting)
I have since moved and no longer use sympatico so it is no longer an issue. Although come to think of it, I don't think I've even used IRC since.
You could try a proxy... (Score:2, Interesting)
Because of spammers! (Score:1)
I have at times put *!*@*.sympatico.com into my IRC shitlist to prevent Sympatico users from being in any of my 10 or so channels.
It's quite simple: If your ISP doesn't stop spammers from abusing IRC, it will be klined/shitlisted/banned/prohibited. And if the ISP provides dynamic IPs, the WHOLE isp will have to be banned instead of just the offending IP(s).
Blame Canada! (Score:1)
Channel/Network op's view (Score:1)
This follows as well with usability. If you have 20 clients, each spewing lines of bogus data every second, no one else can see what's going on in the channel. I'll go out on a limb and say that there is no maybe about it. This IS a DoS attack by definition. For those of you who think that making a channel +m will solve the problem, think again. I have seen join/part floods and
Let me try to give a real world example. Let's look at a large scale riot. There will be people actually doing illegal acts (damaging property, endagering public saftey, etc.) and innocent bystanders. The police will do their best to stop the rioters while leaving the bystanders alone. However, the number if rioters outnumber the number of police officers. So, the police shoot tear gas into the croud to pacify them. Do any bystanders get hit with the gas? Of course. There is just no way around this. This is how the world works.
Here is the bottom line. IRC is a priviladge, not a right. You do not own the equipment. The administrators are kind enough to allow you to use their equipment, free of charge. They donate their time to making sure everything runs smoothly. As is true in society, to have things running smoothly, some rules need to be made, and rules are useless without consequences. Break the rules, face the consequences. Yes, sometimes innocents get hit with these consequences. No one said life, in the real world or otherwise, was fair. Anyone who can solve these problems to everyone's satisfaction will have created a utopian society. That just isn't possible, given human nature (IMHO anyway).
</rant>
Re:Channel/Network op's view (Score:1)
Re:Channel/Network op's view (Score:1)
Of cource it is unethical, not nice to ISP's and so on. So i dont suggest doing it. But it could be done. I was DDossed the other day so i would not do this because i know how tough life is on dialup
But banning is a good soulution. But a problem being skript kiddys using proxys, I know because of being in highschool there are scriptkiddys here who just spam irc channels and stuff. That if i wanted to chat the hosts would be banned which is annoying. Also the proxy server at my school was badly configured and allows external hosts to use it. Script Kiddys use these most of the time to get in as you all probably know. So the soulution for "Trustworthy Computing" (LOL) is smarter admins in the long run.
Re:Channel/Network op's view (Score:1)