Re: CF: Re:Banning players

[Klaus Elsbernd <>]

Hallo

 said:
>  It seems to me, there are two likely cases:
>  1) Server admin bans pretty much anything but a few selected sites.
>  2) Server admin pretty much allows everything but a few problem
> sites.

>  These could pretty easily be done right now with minimal extensions.
> The ban file could be: 
The problem with this think is, IMHO, that we invent the wheels new.
And that's not needed. 

 said:
>  I have seen lots of discussion about what could be done, and a bunch
> saying iit could be nice if, but I don't think I have seen any server
> admins which actually say 'As a server admin, I need this
> functionality' 
That's true. And with this argument, I suggest to code only a minimal
number of lines. And therefore use the library. If one sysadmin will be
very strikt, he already has installed tcp_wrapper, and there is no
need to include those sources. Only one option would be needed to
include/exclude the calls. I think, that's no much work. If no
other one would like to implement it, I'll try it.

Bis dann
Klaus

-- 
"Sure, vi is user friendly.
 It's just particular about who it makes friends with." ;-) 
                                      _________________________
Klaus Elsbernd; System Administrator, BOFH        | 
Deutsches Forschungsz. für Künstliche Intelligenz | DFKI GmbH, Geb. 57/285
67657 Kaiserslautern; Germany                     | Tel: (+49) 0631/205-3486

PGP signature