[AC-Admins] New version of UnrealIRCd is out

[Scott Garron]

On 11/29/2011 6:18 PM, Pippin Bear wrote:
> how long do invitations get suppressed for?  I'm not familiar enough
> with the code for it to be obvious...  My guess is it's "until the
> user joins the channel".

      That's correct.  It's sort of like an admission ticket.  Once you
use it to get in, you've effectively given it to the ticket taker and it
cannot be used again.  In order to get another one, someone needs to
give you one.  Once you have one, there's no need to be given another
one until you use that one.

> Not sure if that could be a problem; can invitations carry messages?
> If not, that's probably okay.

      They cannot carry messages, no.

> I'm just thinking that if someone invites a user a second time to a
> channel and expects them to see it (when they may have overlooked the
> first one) it may be cause a problem.  Or may cause confusion when
> someone invites someone and says "did you get that?"... Probably a
> minor worry though and outweighed by the antispam consideration.

      The "minor worry outweighed by the antispam consideration"
conclusion was mine as well.  Most clients put the notifications all in
one place.  If they missed one, they'll probably end up missing any
subsequent ones as well.  I could have it notify the person doing the
inviting that the person already has an invite so as to cut down on the
"did you get that" confusion, rather than only silently suppressing the
notification to the person being invited.  An alternative would be a
sort of flood limiter, going by the timestamp of the initial invite,
only 1 invite will display notification to the user per n time interval
or something, but that starts getting to be a bit more effort for this
type of edge case.

> I'm hoping to get a couple of new VM servers into my rack in the
> near future, after which I'd like to move bear to its own little VM
> (where we can also put backup services or whatever else we want).

      Excellent.

> Yes, fresh SSL/TLS certificates would be good.  An alternative to
> catsden, if, say, Cheetah doesn't have time any more, is to get them
> from startssl.com, who do free domain-verified certificates.  I've
> been using them for non-critical certificates for some months now.
> There is CAcert too, but last I checked their CA certificate wasn't
> very widely recognised.  OTOH, it's probably more widely recognised
> than catsden's...

      Ok.  I'm waiting a few more days to hear back from Cheetah.  In
reality, it probably doesn't really matter if we use a "central" signing
authority or if we each just create our own.  Having them be both
expired and signed by an unknown authority is a bit too much, though.  :)

-- 
Simba