Anope IRC Services

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Restricted Access - Services Unavailable  (Read 6043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Retro

  • Guest
Restricted Access - Services Unavailable
« on: October 01, 2007, 07:45:07 AM »

I am looking for a way to lock down a channel to specific registered members with the least amount of impact on those members.

After playing with different settings, I've found using access lists on a restricted channel appears to be the easiest to work with as invites require an invite each time a member wants to enter the channel.  Setting restricted allows a voiced level 3 member on the access list to enter without that having to be done.

This method does, however, bring up a concern.  We do experience services being unavailable at times.  While we do have backup services in place, they do not auto start and often it is less than 30 minutes before services are again available as the effected isp clears the problem.

So, my question is, if chanserv and therefore the access lists are unavailable, will anyone be able to access the channel?  If not, is there a way to lift the restricted status automatically if chanserv does become unavailable?  

I would like to avoid having priviledged members being locked out of the channel for periods of time.  From what I've seen, I believe level 10 access is required to remove 'restricted' from a channel.  As the restricted channel option is seldom used on our network, I am also wondering if it is possible to reduce that level to 5?  Better yet, could it be done on a per channel basis?

Thank you,

Retro
Logged

Jan Milants

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1372
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2007, 12:22:23 PM »

/cs help levels .. allows you to set levels.

and i don't really understand what you are asking about lifting restricted... once services are dc'ed they cannot enforce anything anymore on the channel, not unset a +i you may have mlocked or something like that..
Logged
If you like me donate coins to 1FBmZVT4J8WAUMHKqpWhgNVj3XXnRN1cCk :)

Retro

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2007, 01:07:39 PM »

My apologies Viper, I'm attempting to describe this so it makes sense.

What I've been looking at is:
set #channel xop [on|off]
ChanServ -  Syntax: SET channel RESTRICTED {ON | OFF}

The intent being to restrict a channel to priviledged members with as little fuss as possible, and still allow access to the channel should services become unavailable.  It is a bit difficult to test what would happen when they are unavailable as they've been stable for a while, so I thought I would ask.

Thank you,

Retro
Logged

katsklaw

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2007, 02:03:14 PM »

ok how about this: If you are using UnrealIRCd, bahamut or any ircd that has ban exemptions, you can set a ban on *!*@*, then add users that are allowed in to the exemption list. This is all done in the IRCd, that way if services is down the selective access is still in place and nothing about the procedure changes at all with or without services. The users don't need to do anything special so no invites, no channel keys etc ...

The drawback to using a ban and exemptions is that the channel can not close, atleast 1 person or bot must stay in channel to keep it open.

[Edited on 1-10-2007 by katsklaw]
Logged

Retro

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2007, 02:49:16 PM »

Thank you katsklaw,

We are using UltimateIRCd 3.0.1 I believe.  I will give that a try after work.

Retro

[Edited on 1-10-2007 by Retro]
Logged

Retro

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2007, 05:43:19 AM »

Thank you katsklaw,

That looks like it just may do the trick.  The excepts list is supported in Ultimate 3.0.1 and appears to be working fine once you use the proper syntax.  Invites list doesn't appear to work which probably has something to do with the +n on the channel.  No worries, the ban method - accepts list method appears to cause the least amount of fuss.

Thanks again,

Retro
Logged

katsklaw

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2007, 08:57:54 PM »

You're welcome. I'd like to add that in the event that a user needs to be banned, you simply remove their exemption and the ban of *!*@* will apply to them.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up