Ircd

magpie · Idler Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 454 Location: Essex, UK

Restricting channel registration to opers simply isn't feasible on a medium to large sized IRC network. Not only that, it would be a major pain for staff.

Properly thought out requirements, and an automated request system are the way to go, imo. Oh, and automated channel expiry based on more preset parameters.

al5001 · Lurker Joined: 17 Jul 2003 Posts: 181 Location: Canada

I guess its just best to upgrade to faster connection+upgrade the box it runs on and it wont lag Razz

then let all users register

al5001 · Lurker Joined: 17 Jul 2003 Posts: 181 Location: Canada

I only went to quakenet once.. I guess they use Q for channel registration..

magpie · Idler Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 454 Location: Essex, UK

Q gives access to all QuakeNet services, as well as acting as a more advanced chanserv for larger, more established channels. For smaller ones we use L, much easier to request but it will also leave more quickly if the channel isn't used.

Work is currently being done on a new service to act as a replacement (Q9).

U · Eleet Joined: 18 Jun 2003 Posts: 521 Location: IRC

Services have to be on a very good box, simply because you have to figure that at least 50% of the users on at any time (and this is alot higher on bigger networks) are interacting with them upon connection.

So if you have a network that can handle 10,000 users across, oh, 10 servers, that means services has to be able to interact with all 10,000 at once if need be Smile

Ok, they won't be all at once, but still. Especially if you have a server die, and 1000 or so users are reconnecting at once Smile

Thats alot of data for services to absorb, process, and spit back Smile

JulioBell[lalala] · Guest

Devil I miss u ever ...

Yeah, u have all the reason. We need a Comfortable interfase, for setup, and can be that a web interfise for remote administration in HTML.

The windows guys use less webadmin, I think ...

/join #test

+N

+XXX muakssss

JulioBell