|
|
| Author |
Message |
steve
|
|
Does Grex have gnats?
| 
Dec 3 06:27 UTC 1994 |
Humph.
It seems there are people who derive some pleasure in aping
system shutdown messages from me, while in party, such that
some (confused) new folks here think Grex is going down even
more often than it normally does(!).
I've gotten two writes now, asking why I'm doing it at all
times of the day. Needless to say, I straightened them out.
But I'm disturbed at the actions going on here. What do we
do? I have the names of a few of the people; I'm sure you folks
reading this could supply them all.
Or is it best to ignore them, in the hopes that Grex has only
the electronic equivelant of gnats?
|
| 36 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 36:
|
Dec 3 08:01 UTC 1994 |
Add a motd to party, saying that nothing can be believed there.
|
srw
|
|
response 2 of 36:
|
Dec 3 08:15 UTC 1994 |
Also people who come in thru msu-gopher should be aware that that
system superimposes shutdown messages at 3AM every day, although
the shutdown doesn't affect lynxing and gophering users.
This is benign, predictable, and not really what steve was getting at,
but it causes much confusion for similar reasons.
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 36:
|
Dec 3 12:35 UTC 1994 |
I remember the one time I got a system shutdown message from
"bnm" or somesuch, and I was worried that the hackers had taken
over again. Until someone told me he was an admin at MSU, and
was shutting down MSU-gopher. Oops.
Actually, steve, I was only fooled by that message in party
once. The versions I've seen just don't look like they could
be written by you. On the other hand, I've known you off and
on for YEARS, the new folks won't have that advantage. And new
folks won't realize that "ttypq" doesn't exist. >8)
A disclaimer saying "Some of the people in party are twits"
or words to that effect sounds good.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 36:
|
Dec 3 13:47 UTC 1994 |
(Try "!grep -6 -i shutdown /usr/spool/party/log/party.log" and look for
the name right before the "steve:" to find out who has been doing this.)
Dunno if new users know what the word twit means, the way we're using it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 36:
|
Dec 3 13:56 UTC 1994 |
Re #0 and #4: After doing the grep, I'd say it's the electronic
equivalent of gnats. It'll pass.
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 36:
|
Dec 4 00:09 UTC 1994 |
Pathetic... I noticed while looking at the shutdown messages that it
isn't always the same person, and most of the people doing it just do it
once and then stop. I was also happy to notice towards the end that
people were starting to recognize the shutdown messages as hoaxes and
using a bit of peer pressure to try to get the people to stop. There
seemed to be only one person doing it persistantly. I just hope that this
doesn't start causing people to take real shutdown messages less seriously.
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 36:
|
Dec 4 02:01 UTC 1994 |
Well, it won't hurt people any to ingore them--they'll just get
blown off the system--and thats what.
So, do the people reading this item who've seen others posting
the bogus messages want to talk to them?
|
scg
|
|
response 8 of 36:
|
Dec 4 22:42 UTC 1994 |
I'll certainly talk to them if I am in party and see it being done,
although I'm probably not going to go after them now for things I find in
the logs.
|
tsty
|
|
response 9 of 36:
|
Dec 5 10:15 UTC 1994 |
heh - that msu-gopher was a weird one .. for a while.
I like rcurl's idea of saying that nothng in party can
be believed ..... cute, i like it.
I see this as a gnat problem - adn even nicer than tempting
some newbie into typing !stty 0 if they are phoned in.
<question: does !stty 0 have the same effect with pseudo ttys?>
|
mdw
|
|
response 10 of 36:
|
Dec 5 11:18 UTC 1994 |
<try it and see>
|
tsty
|
|
response 11 of 36:
|
Dec 6 09:25 UTC 1994 |
<<tsty searches for clue bus token .....>>
|
sidhe
|
|
response 12 of 36:
|
Jan 9 16:58 UTC 1995 |
As a frequent partier, I must say that this is the least of the
prankster's tricks.. flooding is becoming common, as are screenbombs.
Yes, I wil say that the shutdown messages are startling, and do fool many
people out of party when they occur, but there are much larger problems
down there, my friends...
|
andyv
|
|
response 13 of 36:
|
Jan 10 01:52 UTC 1995 |
So sidhe, what do you think of the problem? What are the other larger
problems? I would appreciate your input.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 14 of 36:
|
Jan 26 19:37 UTC 1995 |
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Well, for one
thing, there is an annoying little trick that can <and has> stopped the
party program dead in its' tracks.. users shelling from party TO party,
causing them to be registered more than once. This isn't a problem, except
when some adolescent twit decides to log into party this way OVER and OVER
again, creating a paralysing lag that quickly turns all "motion" down there
into a wait of ten minutes.. and then, it crashes entirely, throwing
everyone out, usually logging them off at the same time.
I'm not saying we should get rid of party.. I love the program,
and I would feel awful if it were suddenly ripped out. I merely illustrate
that these "gnats" have a pretty nasty bite.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 36:
|
Jan 26 20:42 UTC 1995 |
Since party knows how to figure out who's in party, it should be
possible to modify party source code to disallow people from being in
it twice.
|
steve
|
|
response 16 of 36:
|
Jan 26 22:57 UTC 1995 |
That would be an excellent idea.
|
gerund
|
|
response 17 of 36:
|
Jan 26 23:17 UTC 1995 |
Why would it?
sometimes I'm one channel talking about one thing and on
another channel talking about something else.
To disallow that seems unfair.
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 36:
|
Jan 27 00:12 UTC 1995 |
It should also be possible to disallow people from being in the
same channel twice but allow them to be in different channels at the
same time.
|
steve
|
|
response 19 of 36:
|
Jan 27 01:40 UTC 1995 |
It would be good to disallow the multiple running of party so as
to minimize the hogging of resources. I can see the use in bringing up
a second party, maybe, but no more. Would that take care of the multiple
channel needs?
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 36:
|
Jan 27 11:18 UTC 1995 |
I'd think people would tend to be self-limiting on that one.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 21 of 36:
|
Jan 27 14:47 UTC 1995 |
Well, the real problems occur when someone goes and does MANY party
logins at once, so I'd set the limit to three, myself <two would probably
suffice, but I'd like to keep an extra available, just in case it's needed>
|
gerund
|
|
response 22 of 36:
|
Jan 28 17:08 UTC 1995 |
I'm thinking this isn't a really big problem to begin with.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 23 of 36:
|
Jan 28 19:00 UTC 1995 |
gerund, type "only 14" at the "Respond or pass?" prompt to see the problem.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 24 of 36:
|
Jan 28 19:37 UTC 1995 |
Actually, the new version of party is supposed to fix the problem described
in #14.
|