probonic
Aug 9 2004, 11:36 AM
Just had a look at the AUP and the new IRC policy is in there:
QUOTE
IRC Policy
Company allows stand alone IRC servers which are not connected to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and other IRC networks. IRC servers which establish and maintain connections to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and others will be considered to be in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy.
Company does not allow IRC plug-ins, scripts, add-ons, clones or other software that has the intent or effect of disrupting or denying service to other users. Harassing, disrupting or denying service to other users is expressly prohibited, and may result in the immediate suspension or cancellation of Customer account(s)http://spf.pobox.com/.
If IRC servers attract DoS or DDoS attacks that disrupts or denies service to other Customers, Company will null-route, ACL or otherwise suspend service to maintain quality of service for other Customers on our network.
Company allows the limited use of stand-alone IRC “bots”. Company prohibits the use of “botnets”. Customer IRC server may run a “bot”, but Customer may not join a “botnet”. The use of IRC BNC’s or other proxy and re-direction software is expressly prohibited.
For the purposes of policy enforcement, any malicious activity observed to originate from a Customer’s server may result in the immediate suspension of service to the offending Customer’s server without prior notice. Frequently compromised servers may be reviewed for account termination on a case-by-case basis. The purpose of this case-by-case review is to deter AUP prohibited activity from occurring under the blanket excuse of a “compromised server.”
Harassing, abusive and aggressive IRC activity is prohibited. This includes ‘flooding’ (rapid transmission of information with the intent to harass or deny service), ‘hijacking’ (taking improper or unauthorized control of channel or server operator privileges), sending messages to users who do not want them, attempting to circumvent a channel or server ban, impersonating other IRC users and other abusive IRC behavior as determined by Company.
Company reserves the right to modify or amend the IRC policy at any time.
Just as people have suspected, the main thing is that it has to be a standalone server, and is ok as long as it's not connected to a major IRC network. Which is fair enough in my mind :-)
Guspaz
Aug 9 2004, 11:43 AM
It also now allows bots though ServerMatrix has been granting private requests to run IRC bots for a while now. Now you don't need permission to run a bot.
Paul
Aug 9 2004, 11:45 AM
Mr webmonkey,
http://www.servermatrix.com/faq.html needs to be updated, Re. IRC.
facecake
Aug 9 2004, 11:56 AM
QUOTE
Company allows stand alone IRC servers which are not connected to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and other IRC networks. IRC servers which establish and maintain connections to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and others will be considered to be in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy.
does anyone know are they allowing servers to be connected to small networks (say 40 -> 50 users, and 1 other server) ?
UberDuper
Aug 9 2004, 12:19 PM
It doesn't mention the use of IRC *clients* with global IRC servers such as EFNet, etc. At least, not that I've read. Nor does it seem to prohibit the use of "bots" on those global irc networks.
UD.
rabbit994
Aug 9 2004, 12:24 PM
I think clients and stand alone bots connected to those networks are fine. I'm wondering if we can use programs like Jbouncer and such. Those are really useful.
klaude
Aug 9 2004, 12:32 PM
QUOTE (Paul)
Mr webmonkey,
http://www.servermatrix.com/faq.html needs to be updated, Re. IRC.
Thanks for pointing this out. I've informed our webheads. Give us a bit to update it.
usefull bots such as ones that monitor the room for flood control prevention or some sort of irc channel hijack prevention bot..this will help keep your channel clean..
which can be written from scratch if you know how to do that..
you could also set a non irc port for your irc so there isnt any scanning for open irc channel/servers
hehe.i already see a few ppl taking this for granted..or maybe not..
i guess will see when SM customers post on the forum that there server was unplugged because of irc abuse..
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 12:39 PM
In layman terms....
Its too bad they are pulling an "EV1" here. IOW, if you randomly attract a DOS attack, or is being terrorised, extortion, or backmailed, SM will hurt you, the victim, instead of procecuting the criminal.
Why are you guys pulling an EV1? Why harm your customers? The excuse of DOS attacks for IRC is basically, two-faced, don't you think? Even websites have huge DOS attacks and I see no policy concerning this.
Plus, it looks like you have forgotten that you have a product called FloodGuard.. and a policy in place that per DOS accident for non-floodguard protected IP has a penalty cost for the server owner.
Why does that not apply to IRC? The IRC servers get more DOS attacks is pure BS, as known by the general population so.....
I guess I was putting too much hope into SM. I was hoping there was an IRC policy that actually allows IRC servers w/o SM trying to hurt their own customers.
brad
Aug 9 2004, 12:49 PM
So just ignore that they are now allowing IRC at all. You get the same tried and true service from SM you have had for years. What more can you expect?
Oh yeah...that they are allowing it at all! This is not a nerf, not a reduction in service, not an additional restriction. It's a feature they are allowing that we were never allowed before.
This is a good thing...
Graygriffen
Aug 9 2004, 12:55 PM
Yes i am happy with the new IRC aup, but one thing puzzles me,
IMO channel take overs and other stupid stuff like that are Nothing to do with SM, if you repeated flood a server and the server contacts SM then yes. But why would servermatrix get involved for channel taking? Come on get real thats down to the IRC staff to sort out, Not you
Graygriffen
Aug 9 2004, 12:57 PM
And... I also think that a new forum catergory under support for IRC hosting as this may be a valuble subject for many
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 12:58 PM
No, it would be a good thing if it wasnt to hurt the customer... Look at it this way...
The following is what you gain from the new IRC Policy:
PROS:
1. Ability to run IRC Bots and Clients
2. Ability to run a IRC server
CONS:
1. If you run an IRC server, you
will be shut down. (This is inevitable, due to terrorists/criminals, extortionists, blackmailers, and SM). So the #1 CON and #2 PRO easily cancelled out each other.
2. If you run a IRC server, you do not get the same level of service from SM. You actually get a very low-end service (treating like scum/null route IP?????? instead of a customer/victim)....
Now, there are more pros then cons, however, You really cannot run an IRC server and expect to stay a customer of SM for long. Leaving the IRC Policy only good for IRC bots and clients, which, for that only, is a good thing.
Anyways, if they would only modify (fix?) their policy to state only IRC clients and bots, which, in the long run, that is really the only option for IRC @ SM.
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 12:59 PM
QUOTE (Graygriffen)
And... I also think that a new forum catergory under support for IRC hosting as this may be a valuble subject for many
I 2nd this
I think i understand what Seth2 is trying to say..
correct me if im wrong
if servers get DDOS attacked in general(viruses or trojans etc)..SM has ways to fix and prevent this from happing.. and your not breaking AUP
how ever
if your run an IRC server..and you get DDOS attacked..you end up breaking AUP and you would either have to stop the irc service..or pending on the issue you get unpluged
i think to save alot possible attacks because of irc or non irc releated the connections and server boxes should be protected anyways..
make since?
brad
Aug 9 2004, 01:04 PM
I don't disagree with any of your points, Seth...I just look at it a different way than you I guess. To me if all your cons are conditional upon the pros in the first place, do you really have cons?
QUOTE
And... I also think that a new forum catergory under support for IRC hosting as this may be a valuble subject for many
Thirded
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 01:15 PM
Brad:
I think we are thinking the same way
I mean, cons are only conditional on the pros, well all cons are conditional IF you run a IRC server. I understand that we are free NOT to run any IRC servers at all
And if we dont, we wont get screwed. But if we do, we basically will not be an SM customer any longer
OCX:
Almost
From what I read, we are not given the option to stop the service. Our server will be null routed, and we will no longer be an SM customer. Now, even if that wasnt the case and we are allowed to turn off the service, well, if that is the case with IRC, then it should be the case with web servers, ftp servers, email servers, the list go on...
IRC servers are not more prone to DOS attacks then web servers if the felon is determined enough to destroy businesses and people for the fun of it (as the majority does).
Even if we get hit with a random dos attack (this happens so often it is not funny), we the victims are completely screwed thanks to this AUP addition.
Heh, I was going to run an IRC server, but it turns out now I have to write my own chat client/server. bah.
bchawla
Aug 9 2004, 01:19 PM
Anyone know of any IRCDs for WINDOWS?
I couldnt resist
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 01:30 PM
ferret
Aug 9 2004, 01:32 PM
I don't care about running a server.. But now I can finally move my channel bot off my home server, which hates my current router. Finally.
chirpy
Aug 9 2004, 02:44 PM
QUOTE
Harassing, disrupting or denying service to other users is expressly prohibited, and may result in the immediate suspension or cancellation of Customer account(s)
http://spf.pobox.com/.
Is that URL meant to be some kind of subliminal message :shock: or perhaps, a bit of typing finger trouble?
mystro
Aug 9 2004, 03:11 PM
I've been watching for this policy for a while, and since today was the day, I gave SM a call and discussed it with their techs.
Here is what the standalone IRC server policy means in lamens terms. The server must not be accessible to the global world, as in, no one from the internet should be able to log on to it. The server should only be accessible to you and your possible game server. The reasoning behind this is that manyt game servers use IRC bots to monitor the servers, and so this allows you to use these bots without violating the service.
So, much stricter than EV1's policy I must say.
Graygriffen
Aug 9 2004, 03:18 PM
What! So your not allowed to host an IRCd for your use and some friends?
Thats a bit weird..
Snakez
Aug 9 2004, 04:22 PM
I just called to clarify on this, and was told what mystro said is true, but a small IRC server for you and a few others, or for your company (for support, general chat, etc), would be allowed.
Seth2
Aug 9 2004, 05:11 PM
Since that has not been mentioned in the AUP, what you was told is incorrect.
eddy2099
Aug 9 2004, 06:47 PM
I just checked with them. A small personal IRC server for close door chats would be allowed even if it is between people.
Doodle
Aug 9 2004, 07:19 PM
QUOTE
IRC Policy
Company allows stand alone IRC servers which are not connected to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and other IRC networks. IRC servers which establish and maintain connections to global IRC networks such as Undernet, EFnet, DALnet and others will be considered to be in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy.
Company does not allow IRC plug-ins, scripts, add-ons, clones or other software that has the intent or effect of disrupting or denying service to other users. Harassing, disrupting or denying service to other users is expressly prohibited, and may result in the immediate suspension or cancellation of Customer account(s)http://spf.pobox.com/.
Could someone from ServerMatirx/The Planet please explain why
http://spf.pobox.com is in the IRC Policy. SPF has nothing to do with IRC . It's main use is to help in preventing joe-job spamming and phishing.
Snakez
Aug 9 2004, 08:44 PM
I think they accidently pasted it there, it does seem pretty out of place.
Guspaz
Aug 9 2004, 10:39 PM
This stuff about public servers being forbidden are NOT mentioned in the AUP. Therefore it is OK to run public servers that are not connected to a network.
Until SM changes the AUP to reflect what the techs are saying, they can't have it both ways.
Graygriffen
Aug 10 2004, 05:00 AM
Yeah i agree, ServerMatrix's aup says we are only allowed a stand alone IRC, that means it has to run on its own, No where have SM mentioned that it cannot be public!!
eddy2099
Aug 10 2004, 05:05 AM
I did asked Sales about it and they did not say I could not run my IRC server. Basically, it is an unconnected server for authenticated users only.
Had it installed with no issues.
klaude
Aug 10 2004, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (Doodle)
Could someone from ServerMatirx/The Planet please explain why http://spf.pobox.com is in the IRC Policy. SPF has nothing to do with IRC . It's main use is to help in preventing joe-job spamming and phishing.
Because it's a typo.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll have our web guys take it out.
Guspaz
Aug 15 2004, 12:52 PM
QUOTE (eddy2099)
I did asked Sales about it and they did not say I could not run my IRC server. Basically, it is an unconnected server for authenticated users only.
Had it installed with no issues.
Again, no mention of authentication in the AUP, and the AUP is what matters. If SM wants to ban unconnected private servers allowed by their AUP, they should change their AUP.
eddy2099
Aug 15 2004, 05:05 PM
QUOTE
Again, no mention of authentication in the AUP, and the AUP is what matters. If SM wants to ban unconnected private servers allowed by their AUP, they should change their AUP.
I did not say that SM wants to ban unconnected private servers. They allow such server.
I just added authentication on my IRC server just as a safety precaution which effectively is not that important. It is just what I did, as I just go a little beyond my requirement.
Basically their AUP allows you to run unconnected servers, public or private. If they are connected then that would be prohibited.
rabbit994
Aug 15 2004, 06:16 PM
We are running an unpassworded server for IRC. Either SM doesn't know about it or more likely doesn't care. You just can't create networks.
eddy2099
Aug 15 2004, 06:31 PM
Like I said, I went to password the server, run at a different port and also allow only authenticated users on my IRC server and shut it down when it is not in used is just an extra precautionary step I take. It is above and beyond what the AUP requires. I just like to be careful about what I do. In my case, it is just for some friends and relatives to chat. I never intended for it to be publicly known that I have that facility.
Yes, as long as the IRC server is unconnected, keeping it public and unpassworded is most definitely allowed.
Guspaz
Aug 16 2004, 08:32 PM
Sorry, I mean to say unconnected PUBLIC servers.
ServerMatrix's AUP allows unconnected PUBLIC servers. But Sales is saying differently. They should either change their AUP to reflect that, or stop contradicting themselves.
Here's a gross example; what if ServerMatrix's AUP read "We allow Shoutcast servers", but when you contact ServerMatrix, they tell you "Actually, we don't allow INTERNET shoutcast servers, and the ports are blocked, we just let you run the actual application on your server.".
That'd be false advertising... and it's not so different from what SM seems to be doing with their AUP policy.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a policy saying private-only servers! Just change the AUP to reflect that!
Nightma12
Aug 17 2004, 06:34 AM
LOL, we had all this argueing with the old AUP as well
it said no IRC servers but did not mention bots and they were inforceing no bots
but still, i like the changes SM!
hexoroid
Mar 1 2008, 03:15 PM
I agree with Seth.. he is absolutely right.
James Jhurani
Mar 1 2008, 03:29 PM
QUOTE (hexoroid @ Mar 1 2008, 03:15 PM)
I agree with Seth.. he is absolutely right.
This thread is ~4 years old... You might want to consider opening a new thread if you have an opinion on the topic.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.