[00:01] Oh, thanks. I appreciate being enlightened. But I definately wouldn't have been so disrespectful had I known they were a moderator. Also, I apologized already for all that I had done to infringe upon the channel rules. I understand that you have to enforce your authority but after all this do you honestly think I am going to cause trouble again? Its not like I repeatedly spammed the room, harassed users or caused a major disturban [00:02] ce. I violated a few rules in a way that is miniscule compared to what people usually get BANNED for. [00:02] so you are disrespectful to people who are not ops? [00:02] now that's an attitude that's not welcome [00:03] I think you're gonna cause trouble more often, and if memory serves my you have done so before [00:04] Do you honestly think you are doing your job by banning somone who is just looking for help? If I just wanted to cause problems with people, dont you think I would have moved on to a new group of people now?? [00:05] you were looking for help with knoppix -- after pointing out you were in the wrong place you got offensive [00:05] konqui-89, would you like to publically change your opinion on the difference in treatment of operators and other users? [00:05] yes, ompaul did his job by banning you [00:06] bedtime here [00:06] bye [00:07] PriceChild, No. I would definately be more hesitant/apprehensive to refute an op [00:07] Do ops deserve better treatment? [00:07] not that I take pleasure in arguing with people for the hell of it [00:07] ... refute [00:08] ops deserve the respect that the channel rules command i guess [00:08] the channel guidelines demand no extra respect for ops than any other user [00:08] so does everyone else [00:08] konqui-89: i suspect you're missing the point that is trying to be made here :( [00:08] No im just not going to abandon common sense [00:09] I understand that in order to be part of a productive, active and enjoyable enviornment everyone must be respected, not just ops. [00:09] I imagine thats the point that is being hinted at, correct, nalioth? [00:10] Look, I've made an honest attempt at trying to settle this with an honest apology and promise of future respect. I am about to stop wasting my time. [00:11] yes, i do suggest you come back at a later stage. [00:11] You're really going to just ignore my pleas like this... [00:12] eh, it's been discussed, i don't think it's been ignored [00:13] konqui-89, several of us dislike your opinion of how operators should get better treatment. I'm pretty sure we also believe that this is a sign of several other ways you disagree. [00:13] I dont see the logic in keeping the ban. This is not what I would call customer support. Even if I didnt BUY ubuntu, I've invested time into downloading and installing it. I've invested hours into learning it. Thats about as valuable as money. So after all that, this is the support that I get??? [00:13] konqui-89: sometimes we make hard choices. [00:13] How many of you guys have a social work degree that allows you to psycho analyze me over the internet? [00:14] konqui-89: we don't have any sort of technical support certification either, so we aren't really the best people to seek support from. [00:14] also, you're now clearly trolling. [00:14] Because I dont know you personally but I do know that psycho-analysis cannot be done in a chat room. [00:14] * PriceChild imagines if irc experience lead to recognised qualifications. [00:14] LTS? [00:15] LTS? [00:15] I remember one of the KEY factors of linux being the community support. Its a pillar in the usability of the software. [00:15] yes, and respect. [00:15] Im being denied a great portion of the "LONG TERM SUPPORT" from this choice. [00:15] konqui-89: did you have anything further? [00:16] konqui-89: none of us in this room are being paid. We do this out of love for the project and there's nothing obligating us to put up with negativity [00:16] LTS as in Long Term Support is what is provided by Canonical commercially. [00:16] You still have that option. [00:16] !support [00:16] The official ubuntu support channel is #ubuntu. Also see http://ubuntu.com/support and http://ubuntuforums.org [00:16] Two of which have been tried for my circumstance. [00:17] fine, you still have the paid support option, where you're actually entitled to support. [00:18] here, you're only entitled to seek support, and only so while abiding by the irc guidelines. you didn't, and we deem that your ban should stay set for a longer time. that is our decision. you had the opportunity to discuss this, but we didn't change our minds. [00:18] please come back at a later stage if you so desire. bye. [00:18] Okay, what have I done wrong here. Its honestly grating on my nerves that you guys still proclaim that I am a disturbance when I have only been diplomatic. [00:18] No. [00:19] no? [00:19] You, obviously have no respect for your users. Its incredibly apparent. [00:22] * pleia2 winces a bit at the nick "DirtySanchez" in #xubuntu [00:33] OH GOD THE WIKI IS DOWN [00:33] just came back up [00:38] jdong, that was quick. [00:38] pleia2, I can understand people finding jackass "funny" but sanchez... dearie me... [02:28] !exploit [02:28] There are people around who think it is funny to abuse a bug in certain routers by sending invalid DCC commands. When bitten by this bug ops in #ubuntu remove users so they are no longer targets. To fix it have a look here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FixDCCExploit [03:36] hey LjL you around? [03:37] i am just wondering if today is my luckyday and my ban could be lifted === robotgee1 is now known as robotgeek [06:35] hello, it seems im affected by this router bug, i guess it just started happening a little bit ago cause i was on the ubuntu channel just a bit ago then all of a sudden i cant get in, can some1 help? [07:22] xxploit: have you read and followed the instructions? [07:23] yes [07:24] xxploit: so the automatic test didnt help? [07:25] nope [07:25] i changed the port for xchat [07:25] didnt do anything [07:25] i can still get in my other channels [07:25] but not unbuntu [07:26] xxploit: so what happened when you typed test me in that channel? [07:27] just disconnects then reconnects [07:28] and i get put bak into the read topic channel [07:29] xxploit: ok, so what does the topic say to do next (you havent done it ;) [07:30] firmware? or join this channel [07:31] says join this channel and ask to be tested by an op [07:31] i thought thats wat i was asking for? [07:31] Lol [07:31] there we go. [07:32] so can you test me? =) [07:32] anyway, you will need to wait for one of the #ubuntu ops to help you. [08:20] astro76 called the ops in #ubuntu (bullgard4) [08:31] astro76 called the ops in #ubuntu (dimcho23) [09:04] I got kicked from #ubuntu while leaving my channel open overnite. Sorry if that's not a good thing. I tested with #ubuntu-read-topic, and my connection was reset with no other feedback. Now things are ok -- but is there anything I should do? [09:06] jimcooncat: theres nothing wrong in idling [09:06] further help stand by and someone will help :) [09:06] Thanks Tm_T [09:08] jimcooncat, if you have been bounced to read-topic, probably you need to change your connection to freenode. Did you read the wiki page https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FixDCCExploit ? [09:09] Yes, I read it. I should change my port? I was hoping the automatic test would tell me. [09:09] jimcooncat, if you failed the automatic test, yes [09:09] jimcooncat, fail = connection reset [09:10] thanks no0tic, that part wasn't obvious [09:10] no0tic: is this a concern for other servers, too? I frequent OFTC. [09:11] jimcooncat, this concern your own router [09:12] no0tic: it's a new router. I'm surprised it has a vulnerability out of the box, but what should I expect from Walmart? Thanks. [09:16] jimcooncat, change your connection port to 8001 and go to #ubuntu-read-topic type "test me" and if you don't disconnect again (you shouldn't), move here and wait for an op to unban you [09:17] no0tic: I'm doing the change, but I'm not currently banned from #ubuntu [09:18] jimcooncat, sorry, I thought you were [09:21] no0tic: I'm back using port 8001, but the Floodbot won't accept my nick to test me. Strange. [09:22] jimcooncat, as said before I'm not an op, wait for one to assist you [09:22] no0tic: sorry, I missed that. I guess I'm ok now anyway. [09:23] I'll stay on the channel a while for an op [09:29] how long does it take for an op to come and test? [09:30] depends [09:30] I could test if I knew how or have time to learn now [09:30] sorry 'bout it, I'm quite busy atm [09:30] well ive probably been here like more than an hour lol [09:32] xxploit: that is very short time in human life, patience ;) [10:20] popey called the ops in #ubuntu () [10:20] dgjones called the ops in #ubuntu (alpaco) [10:20] any ops awake? [10:22] nemilar called the ops in #ubuntu () [10:23] [alpaco] (n=srv@91.98.89.238): alpaco is being: offensive, a troll, obnoxious, a potty mouth, a bot-abuser... the list goes on [10:24] I'M A NEWB MIDDLE-EASTER TROLL [10:24] stuff like that. [10:26] ahmadinejad called the ops in #ubuntu () [10:26] nemilar called the ops in #ubuntu () [10:27] yo dgjones are you an op in #ubuntu ? [10:27] please please please for the love of all that is holy say yes [10:27] is there anybody around that can have a look at #ubuntu [10:27] nemilar, nope, i'm here for the same reason you are [10:27] darn it [10:27] it broadcasts a message in here everytime someone !ops but still, I mean, this is getting rediculously annoying [10:28] mez, alpaco is trolling / offensive [10:28] <3 we love you mez [10:29] popey, no user iun there called alpaco [10:29] he may have changed nicks [10:29] i ignore nick changes [10:30] finally tracked him down [10:30] you're the man now, dog! [10:31] thanks Mez [10:31] Mez, this was a whois i did when he started http://paste.ubuntu-nl.org/54973/ [10:31] I managed to get the ban in place quite easily ;) just not the kick [10:33] I'M A NEWB MIDDLE-EASTER TROLL [10:33] doesn't he have to wait till April this year for that ? [10:34] Mez, Its early, middle of March this year, but i'll leave now anyway [10:34] I thought easter was april this year [10:56] he may have missed a letter in his eager typing [11:02] In ubotu, popey said: pulseaudio is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PulseAudio [11:48] Hmmm, did anyone else get spammed with: [13:46] #Linuxers on Dalnet needs some good company and good channel operators. wana join? type /server -m irc.dal.net and join #Linuxers to see. ?? [11:49] nalioth: can you do something about that? [11:59] jussi01, about 17 hours ago - hes [12:00] Mez: weird, i got it ~ 15 mins ago [12:14] jussi01, i believe it's the same tard that's been doing it for days [12:15] the staff are constantly chasing him around [12:18] jussi01, me too [12:18] jussi01, 4 minutes ago [12:19] http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relay_transport [12:22] Bodsda called the ops in #ubuntu () [12:29] yeesh, lots of ops hilights in my backlog for last night. === no0tic_ is now known as no0tic [12:32] Pici: yeah, was a busy night... === no0tic_ is now known as no0tic [14:27] eh no [14:27] Hi is there any chance of having a ban from #ubuntu lifted? [14:27] eh? [14:27] you can't greet someone who hasn't yet joined the channel [14:28] axod: chance? yes. [14:28] why were you banned? [14:28] for using a web client lol [14:28] !proxy [14:28] Many Ubuntu IRC channels prohibit access from !proxies such as !TOR due to a high level of abuse. You can however obtain a hostmask cloak: see http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#cloaks [14:28] it's an understandable restriction for random web clients that don't pass on information [14:29] Pici: in fact, those three were all clones. dunno how i didn't notice the first time [14:29] LjL: *headdesk* [14:29] Pici: we have a cloak for our webclient [14:29] axod: yes but the cloak doesn't allow identifying the user, who can then go on to use web clients to "dodge" bans for instance [14:29] it'd be really nice to allow access to our users though [14:30] LjL: the users IP is in the username, and their host is in the realname [14:30] and afaik in the cloak [14:31] axod: but still a ban on the hostname won't pass on to the cloak [14:31] it banning by IP worked... [14:31] the IP is in the ident [14:31] but a ban on the user works fine [14:31] I haven't seen any other channels with this restriction for us, [14:31] Dave2: yes but if i ban host86-129-150-213.range86-129.btcentralplus.com, axod when using the gateway isn't banned [14:31] it's just a shame [14:31] you can ban *!?=[IP in hex]@gateway/* , and that'll ban a user from most places [14:31] Dave2, not what i'm saying [14:32] ah [14:32] Dave2: what i'm saying is: a user first joins with their normal account [14:32] they get themselves banned [14:32] they find a web gateway, and join from that [14:32] they get themselves banned [14:32] they find another gateway, and join from that [14:32] repeat the process [14:32] I was under the impression the "x-afac4833d922d1f1" in the cloak was related to my username/realname IP info [14:32] and so you could ban on that [14:32] axod, it's not, it's random [14:32] hmm not su useful then [14:32] axod: let me try something, please rejoin [14:32] still, banning on user works [14:33] LjL, well, they'd only do that process once, since CGI:IRC and mibbit share the same format for identifying users [14:33] 86.129.150.213 [14:33] LjL: there aren't *all* that many gateways [14:33] hey [14:33] axod: see, banning by IP normally works for cloaked users [14:33] but not with gateway cloaks [14:33] sure [14:33] it's a shame freenode don't do webirc [14:33] (this is your IP yes) [14:34] yep [14:34] so you have to ban on the hexip part [14:34] axod: yes but that's not the same ban that we can put on a user who's connected directly... if freenode could match the IP automatically, that would be nice [14:35] I think LjL's point, is that a ban on someone using a real irc connection, won't stop them just joining on a web proxy. [14:35] so i could ban your IP, and the gateway cloak corresponding to that IP would get banned [14:35] Which means extra work. [14:35] but that's not the case [14:35] true... you have to ban them twice [14:35] indeed [14:35] axod: not only that, but we're unlikely to find out they're the same user in the first place, unless we already suspect that [14:35] it's just a shame our users can get on all other channels, [14:35] but not #ubuntu etc [14:36] axod: i mean, sure, the IP is there, but in the realname it's not precisely easy to match it unless you know it already [14:36] I think you're assuming most people are evil though [14:36] We get a lot of abuse from people using webclients unforunately. [14:36] how do you know? [14:36] they can't get on the channel [14:36] It is more of a shame that all users dont behave themselve [14:36] How? Because we've experimented with lifting the bans before. [14:36] axod, no, we assume a large percentage of people joining from gateways are using it as a proxy to dodge bans [14:37] and that's an assumption based on experience unfortunately [14:37] ok, well, it's a shame. Mibbit does not have that intention. Clearly states that their info will be passed along [14:37] we even track and count kicks for abusive people [14:37] but if that's still your policy, I guess I'll have to stick with it [14:38] axod: another problem - your gateway gives that information [14:38] but do all other gateways (which have freenode cloaks) do the same? [14:38] (genuine question, i'm not very sure) [14:39] most likely not no [14:39] so lift the ban for mibbit and not others :) [14:39] axod, but that isn't possible [14:39] there isn't a ban on mibbit [14:39] there is a generic ban on gateways [14:39] you can't make an exception for gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com ? [14:40] axod: no, because an except would make it impossible to ban anyone from mibbit [14:40] ok so the other question though, [14:40] you ban web proxies that freenode knows about and cloaks [14:40] what about the rest? [14:40] axod, when i realize that something is a proxy, i do ban [14:41] surely because I have a cloak setup, taken steps to make things work get rid of abusers etc, that should make things better.... [14:41] axod, i understand your point of view [14:41] axod: look, perhaps it would be possible to arrange a different cloak with freenode, for gateways such as yours which provide the hostname information (hopefully in a standard way) [14:42] sure. It's just irritating for me.. [14:42] axod: so we could ban the kind of cloak that doesn't [14:42] that would be cool, I've asked freenode about WEBIRC, but I'm not sure they surrport it currently [14:42] axod: and i suppose we can think of technical ways to alert us when someone who's banned joins from a gateway [14:42] axod: what is WEBIRC? [14:42] for servers such as irc.mozilla.org we do WEBIRC which allows us to spoof the host. So these problems go away [14:43] axod: i.e. to directly show the user's hostname in the mask? [14:43] yup [14:43] well that would be the smoother solution i suppose [14:43] smoothest* [14:43] we tell the ircd server their hostname and it shows up exactly as a direct connection would [14:43] sure [14:44] I've sent freenode staff another email about it, so I'll see what they say [14:44] I do understand what you say about abusive people and dodging bans etc. It's a tough problem [14:44] axod: well, lacking that, though, if you could have a cloak like gateway/web-ident/* (or something, meaning that your users' host is given in the realname field, or wherever) instead of gateway/web/*, that would allow channels to just ban the latter cloak [14:45] ah ok, sure. Perhaps I'll suggest that to freenode also [14:46] thanks for the help/ideas, I don't mean to moan, but I'm sure you understand I have a lot of users moaning at me because they can't get on #ubuntu [14:46] axod: otherwise, the only option would be for us to have a list of *every* gateway, and ban them singularly [14:46] i'm not sure that is feasible [14:46] sure. Not quite as workable [14:47] axod, look, while we all work out a solution with freenode, what i can do is monitor #ubuntu-proxy-users, and give a temporary exempt to people connected from your gateway after checking they aren't supposed to be banned [14:48] i'm not here all day though and i really can't force other operators to do this [14:48] We could bring it up as a discussion point for the next irc-council meeting. [14:48] * LjL looks at pici with a menacing expression [14:49] heh [14:49] ok I'll suggest the cloak change to freenode, unless they suddenly support WEBIRC [14:49] sounds like that would be a start anyway [14:50] the other option surely would get their bot to make our cloak related to the IP/hostname I pass on [14:51] eg gateway/web-ident/mibbit.com/6e7a8493/x-433687364 [14:51] so that you can then ban on IP at least [14:51] isn't that the same situation we are in now? [14:51] at the moment the cloak is random afaik [14:51] and doesn't include the users own IP/host [14:52] ah ok [14:52] axod: how random? [14:52] axod: if you disconnect and reconnect, it changes, is that correct? [14:54] not sure I'll check [14:54] PriceChild: what i care most about is the "web-ident" part, which would allow to distinguish (in the banlist) between gateways that do provide the host information and ones that don't [14:54] it's given by idoru bot on connection [14:55] Dave2, are you still around? [14:58] yus [14:59] the cloak changes on each connection [14:59] Dave2: yes, i just checked that and found out. but any idea on the feasibility of giving gateways such as theirs (which give the IP in the ident/realname) a different sort of cloak, so that we can only ban the rest? [14:59] gateway/web-ident/* as opposed to gateway/web/*, say [15:00] I believe that all cloaked gateways give the IP in the ident [15:00] Dave2: ah, so they do? [15:00] hm [15:00] it's the default config for CGI:IRC, IIRC [15:01] but you can disable that with cgi::irc [15:01] or just write your own that doesn't [15:01] mibbit will always [15:01] i'm thinking of something a bit involved [15:01] the main problem with it being the fact that an exempt overrides a ban [15:02] (well, which is also why it would work in the first place... but makes banning difficult) [15:04] axod: do you need to be leaving anytime soon? [15:05] no should be about for a while yet [15:05] good [15:09] axod: is the thing that shows up in the realname always the same thing that would normally show up in the host part of the mask? [15:10] afaik, yes [15:10] I'm just rdns'ing the users IP, [15:10] i'm thinking mainly of IP vs hostname [15:10] i can't gethostbyname everyone in the banlist [15:12] the hostname lookup is actually quite expensive for me, [15:12] but I thought it would be useful for banning [15:12] so you can see what actual host they are from etc [15:12] and the IP is already in the username [15:14] axod: yep, hostname lookup would be expensive for me as well, and yes it is indeed useful for bans if it does always match what freenode would normally put in the hostmask [15:15] I can't see why it wouldn't [15:16] unless it resolves to several hostnames and we choose different ones for some reason [15:16] I'm just using a standard java call to resolve it though so likely to be a standard method [15:49] axod: mind trying to join #ubuntu? [15:54] takes me to #ubuntu-proxy-users [15:55] axod: read the message there [15:59] ah cool sorry :) [15:59] works [15:59] nice :D [15:59] axod: now do you mind if i kick you from there? need to test something [16:00] eh, too late [16:00] sorry will join again [16:00] oh not allowed now? [16:00] start again.... [16:00] axod: it's temporary - i.e. when you leave it goes away [16:01] gotcha [16:01] ok, it works [16:01] kick worked [16:01] axod: it worked, and the bot removed the exempt [16:01] that's the important part [16:01] cool [16:01] that seems like a good solution, [16:02] axod: now i can't guarantee that this will stay, because i need to discuss it with other operators first [16:02] axod: and hopefully it's not too buggy (not bugs that prevent us from banning people at the very least) [16:02] axod: but, we'll see [16:04] ok, thanks a million for getting it working, [16:04] hopefuly it'll allow some techies in that can't otherwise access it [16:04] hi axod [16:04] hi nalioth [16:04] axod: have you not looked into tor IP lists? [16:04] PriceChild, nalioth, elkbuntu, what do you think? the mibbit.com IRC gateway gives all their users a unique identifier, i.e. sets their real hostname as the realname. when people using it join #ubuntu-proxy-users, the floodbot checks that field against the #ubuntu ban list. if the hostname appears to be banned, nothing is done. otherwise, an exempt is set. the exempt stays active until the user parts, quits, or is kicked [16:05] or open proxy IP lists? [16:05] LjL: that's your department. if the user isn't banned by IP, no reason they should be banned because they use a gateway [16:06] LjL: and your method can be used for other gateways, too [16:06] nalioth: as long as they provide a way to identify by hostname, yes. [16:06] nalioth: the only gotcha i can think of, right now, is that it will not recognize bans by IP (as opposed to hostname) [16:06] LjL: most of the gatways provide a hexed IP 1234abcd@ljl.box.of.death [16:07] that would involve a gethostbyname() call, which is synchronous, and so could potentially lock the bot up, which is not something i want to happen [16:07] at the moment we don't look for tor, we do recognise proxies though and can use that if there is abuse [16:07] nalioth: IP alone isn't really good, because it requires a reverse DNS request to match against the banlist [16:08] i'm just wondering why someone would need to connect to a gateway using tor or an open proxy [16:08] nalioth, axod: uhm, what you're saying is that there is a loophole in that Tor users, who are not normally allowed in (banned by cloak), can connect to mibbit, which will not give them a Tor cloak... correct? [16:09] LjL: that is one point, yes. [16:09] or they could just use a tor node that isn't identified yet [16:10] we will probably block tor from mibbit soon though [16:10] axod: i suppose. but i think you should blacklist the Tor exit nodes that are identified by freenode... no reason those people can't connect directly using tor (except, of course, that they might be banned in some channels, such as #ubuntu, but that's, well, wanted) [16:10] sure [16:13] I'm hoping to take a more algorithmic approach though [16:13] axod: well i suppose we can all just keep quiet about this little loophole while you prepare a blacklist :) [16:14] that would be cool, I'm working on a lot of stuff, especially anti-spam/abuse things [16:16] LjL: too late for that [16:16] * nalioth notes we're in a public channel here [16:16] nalioth: like anybody would check the logs [16:17] LjL, how do we stop exempts if needed? [16:17] nalioth: did you catch the spammer report from me earlier? [16:17] PriceChild: stop them from being set, or remove them? [16:17] jussi01: did you /msg seenserv seen [spammer] ? [16:17] LjL, say someone gets in with this system, bots set an exempt. If they're nasty, what do we do? [16:18] PriceChild: you kickban. the kick will cause the exempt to be removed. [16:18] nalioth: no. should I have? [16:18] PriceChild: and the ban will cause the hostname to be flagged as "don't allow in again" [16:18] LjL, why can't they just get another exempt? [16:18] right ok [16:18] PriceChild: until the bot is restarted [16:18] by hostname you mean username? [16:18] jussi01: that is how one finds out where they've gone [16:18] jussi01: spammers don't last long here [16:19] PriceChild: no, i mean hostname - the stuff that appears in the realname field [16:19] nalioth: ahh, ok. [16:19] PriceChild: one second, i'll give you a demonstration [16:19] join ##ljl anyone who's interested [16:19] (and -ops-monitor) [16:19] nalioth: what is the correct protocol on that - should I have used !staff | reason ? [16:20] jussi01: if you like [16:20] jussi01: best to check and see if a kline was issued already [16:20] nalioth: ok, thanks. (just dont want to abuse it (; ) [16:23] irssi changelog in hardy says that they are making the default setup join #ubuntu on freenode. [16:28] Pici, otb? before you've set anything up? [16:29] PriceChild: Thats what it sounded like to me. [16:37] Nyle: Hello there, how can we help you today? [16:37] probably not [16:37] Probably not what? [16:37] as most of your ops are morons it seems (not intellectually, but socially) [16:37] with all due respect [16:38] was that harsh? [16:38] I apologize. [16:38] Er. I dont think the "all due respect" thing negates your comment. [16:38] I go into ubuntu, and I ask for help [16:38] and people won't stop talking about stuff absolutely NOT related to ubuntu [16:38] I wasn't getting any help, and I asked them to go to somewhere offtopic and I was attacked, and your ops didn't do jack [16:39] other than that, I don't have any comnplains [16:39] Nyle: Which channel was this? And when? [16:39] #ubuntu [16:39]