[AC-Admins] Server configuration differences

[BlueOtter]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Pippin Bear <pippin at floof.org> wrote:

> Prompted by a mention in #opers that the channel join limit is not
> consistent across servers, I've done a /version on each and inspected
> for differences.
>
> "/version" differences between servers:
>
> cheetah is on Unreal3.2.6. while all others are on Unreal3.2.8.1.
>
> cheetah is running a kernel from 2004, all others have kernels from
> 2010-11.
>
> There's an item starting :Fhi which I'm guessing is compile-time flags
> but I've not been able to find documentation on them, however:
>
>        bear, husky and lion have "n", all others don't.
>        bear, husky, lion and panda have "6", all others don't.
>        cheetah and lion have "3", all others don't.
>

I got sidetracked before deploying an IPv6 build, because the v6 address
wasn't available to me at the time I was ready for it -- it is ready now.
 Sorry for the delay.


>
> cheetah does not have UHNAMES, all others do.
>
> otter and cheetah have MAXCHANNELS=15 CHANLIMIT=#:15, all others have
> MAXCHANNELS=25 CHANLIMIT=#:25.
>

I think this is the config script default, but I can fix on next compile.


cheetah does not have WATCHOPTS=A, all others do.
>

This is an away notification.  Specific to Unreal, it should be supported so
the feature is available through any server in the rotary.

http://cvsweb.unrealircd.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb/unreal/doc/technical/Attic/005.txt?rev=1.1.2.2.2.8



> lion has EXTBAN=~,cqnrE while all others have EXTBAN=~,cqnr
>

c = channel, q = quiet, n = nickchange, r = realname.  These are extended
bans, so you can ban someone ~q:~c:#anthrochat to 'Quiet all users who are
also in #anthrochat', etc.  I cannot find documentation for what ~E is.
 Does LION has some special module loaded?


Perhaps someone who knows how to interpret all these (or is willing to
> spend longer searching documentation) could see what needs changing to
> make things more consistent.
>
> Another thought: did anyone do a check to make sure none of our servers
> have that backdoor which was put into the distributed version of 3.2.8.1
> at one point?  I seem to remember it can be checked remotely.
>

I'd be keenly interested in finding out, but I don't know how to check this
remotely.  If otter is good to go, I will likely wait until the 3.2.9
release and simply fix the compile options with an upgrade to that version.

-BlueOtter