• English
  • עברית עברית
  • Français Français
  • Nederlands Nederlands
  • Suomi Suomi
  • Deutsch Deutsch
  • Svenska Svenska

Latest News

BlizzCon 2019

BlizzCon returns to the Anaheim Convention Center once again! Welcome to the most epic family reunion on the planet. BlizzCon is a place where friendships are forged, heroes come to life, and the most passionate community in the world takes ...

Read the rest 0 comments

HYPERCHARGE: Unboxed full version giveaway!

QuakeNet is holding a giveaway for the full version of "HYPERCHARGE: Unboxed" for our PC users. The giveaway starts at 18:00 CEST and ends at 20:00 CEST on Thursday the 5th of September. You're a small plastic soldier with a ...

Read the rest 0 comments

The International 2019 (dota2)

The International 2019 is the concluding tournament of the Dota Pro Circuit and the ninth annual edition of The International. The tournament will be held on Chinese soil for the first time, as it moves to the Mercedes-Benz Arena in ...

Read the rest 0 comments

New Q Features

Posted by magpie on Tuesday 19 October 2004

As many of you will have noticed, Q was given a bit of an upgrade last night. A number of features were introduced:

  • A maximum number of 2 users may AUTH to any one account.

  • +b CHANLEVs are now hidden in a Q WHOAMI, unless +m or +n CHANLEV is combined with it.

  • Only CHANLEVs for common channels are shown in a Q WHOIS, like L.

  • Staff members may be identified by a Q WHOIS.

  • Q will now use a PART message when leaving a channel.

  • Global auth levels have been removed from the Q WHOIS. In order to help reduce the effects of compromised accounts, as well as idler clones, it has been decided to limit the maximum number of concurrent logins to 2 per account. When you attempt to AUTH to an account with two users already logged in, you will see: -Q- Too many users AUTH'd to this account.

+b CHANLEVs have been removed from a WHOAMI request, unless +m or +n CHANLEV is combined with it, in order to try and prevent spamming accounts with bans as well as reducing the affects when this happens. The chanlev is shown when you have +m or +n CHANLEV in order to allow you to remove it.

No doubt most of you will know that L hides channels from a WHOIS in which you do not have a CHANLEV. This has now been replicated in Q to increase privacy.

Staff members are identified in a Q WHOIS with "-Q- nickname is QuakeNet Staff."; IRC operators will also have "-Q- nickname is an IRC Operator." If anybody approaches you claiming to be staff, and that person is neither identified as a staff member by Q nor as an IRC operator in a /WHOIS, you should ignore the person and report them to #feds.

When Q leaves a channel, for any reason, it will issue an associated PART message. For instance, if Q is suspended from your channel it will leave with "Channel suspended." as the PART message.

The global auth level has been removed from the Q WHOIS in order to reduce confusion amongst new users, as to what the level actually means and how it is changed.

Update:

A new security feature was also introduced into Q, and has recently been activated. If the email address for an account is changed, the account will be locked for a period of time. Any further changes to the email address will be denied until this time period has expired, whilst an email will be sent to the original address detailing how the changes may be reversed with the RESET command. The changes may not be reversed once the time limit has expired - the expiry time will be given in the email that is sent to you. It is hoped this change will help reduce the effects of compromised accounts, and allow users to recover them.

Enjoy.

Please log in to post comments.
Nice changes #1

thetwixer said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

g00d :d

b4l-75o13 said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

That\'s just great. It should also reduce flag-trading quite a lot. :)

blackshroud said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

Very good changes !!

bar said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

great additions to a great service..

zyberdog said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

yeah, nice features. is this the end of flag-trading? :)

hisyh said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

Great changes, though I don\'t like the hiding of the Q flags. With this change, you aren\'t able to find the owner (or master) of channels containing Q - Hope you will listen, and think about was I just wrote ;)

neoncyber said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

very good changes :D simply i can\'t see my own +b flags. Qnet against the traders weeeeeeeeee :D

mcnono said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

it think #2 (+b CHANLEVs are now hidden in a Q WHOAMI, unless +m or +n CHANLEV is combined with it.) is a bad change and the hiding of Q-Flags isn\'t so good too! But #2 is bad! In a whoami i think all #b flags should be shown!

dom1n1k said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

#8 maybe just ask in channel?

bar said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

Why limit the number of auths from one account ?

lilliz said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

#12: read the news post?

magpie said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

the change #1 suxx, it would be better you add hostmask checks for this and no account limitation, so that every user could manage his account a little bit more and add/del his own hostmasks - the rest of the changes doesn\'t care me...

sephiroth said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

really nice! i hope the flag trade reduce , but Q stealing may be bigger .. But its nice changes ! // Dunkie

dunkie said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

The change #1 is good but the limit is to low :/ somebody who use more bnc\'s they now have problems and they must use more Q accs :/ I want to ask if you can change the Auth limit to 4.

besser said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

All i can say is: Nice! I don\'t really use any of these functions so I don\'t really mind the changes, but I hope it will reduce the flag trading and similar things.

dexterminator said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

this Q update is really bad takers mass Q +b dealers and overtaker crew`s will no being happy and that only 2 connect can auth with same auth is actually good but why its cannot be 3 because i know many bot service what use same auth on 3 bots also i think its better if can see own +b update it like if its not visit on some chan cannot add there +b by / jasso

jasso1337 said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

sorry about that typingwirtes so move that old this Q update is really bad takers mass Q +b dealers and overtaker crew`s will now being happy because easyer take channel and mass banned ppls because no that ppls cannot see they own +b\'s and now his friend may see they have multiplle +b and think he is an taker because have so many and give him more, also if your friend start moving your +n flags on your Q channel and there is 2 friend only with you who have +n you cannot know wi

jasso1337 said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

#19: Stop using bablefish. :p 2 authed users per account is more than enough and the fact that +b flags are hidden will eradicate the \"he mass q banned me. omg omg!!1\" questions in #help/#feds.

abdul said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

Personally I think they should\'ve kept the being able to view Q flags off other people, just not the +b\'s, that would stop the mass Qbanning in it\'s tracks too.

s3ct0r said on Tuesday 19 October 2004

i think this sucks :/ i love to gather q-flags,

kepoc said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

so this update pwns little kids like fisky :)

owner said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Thanks, now I have to recode my bots because I need many new auths for them and I have to ask for more than one +m flag per channel with (protect) bots in it...

timefx said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

#24 \'Protection\' bots are shit anyway :p

dollar said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

I Hate Q whois it\'s GooD now =) like L thx =)

toti said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Very good changes, nice work guys :)

amrc said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

yay, no more qflag trade kiddies who indicate with their huge Qwhois.. that\'s nice, thx! :)

dis said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Very nice guys! I miss a Channel Control Section at Quakenet Page, where i can control my flags and channels etc. :)

daoud said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Yeah, nice but Rule #1 - isnt good.. 2 users per auth ? hmm -,- 3 are ok but k.. we must live with it ^^

felixx said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

The changes are just perfect. Nobody needs more than 2 clients per auth and the flag trading/mass banning crap is rendered useless now.

jack said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

too bad :((((

gl4d1us said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Great work of Quakenet-Staff once again! Nice feature that have been added there. Good job to all coder / development team. Goon with this great work.

doom_bringer said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

hrhr, we nice. thank you :P

me said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Bad change :( Q whois is now an L whois it\'s so bad... Please Q whois back :(

fgh said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Hi, very nice changes, i think they will change some things on quakenet.. (flagtraging, mass +b, \"overtake-proxy-clones\") and maybe the run on Q and the \"Why can\'t i get Q on my chan??ß\" kiddies in #help go back to where they came from ;) However, good work @ qnet staff! Greetz CehopS

starchild||afk said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

yeah!!!!! n1 features!!!!!!! qnet r0x! : )!

{eagle}leader said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

this suxx imo, cuz if you want to use a channel that got Q, and there is 100 OP\'s in there, then you cant qwhois them... old Q back :C

macke-dah-1337 said on Wednesday 20 October 2004

However, nice work. Hopefully Q-Flag-trader-kiddies won\'t have now fun with their lame deals. Great! :)

nav1 said on Thursday 21 October 2004

Will those of you with negative things to say actually read the article in full before saying such things. The changes were made for your security and peace of mind at the end of the day.

kryt said on Thursday 21 October 2004

Imho, the Q auth limit is useless. I have three bouncers, as im on quite alot of channels. Now I only can be authed with two of them... Imo you should increase it to 5, as the allowed number of clones is 5.

anders1 said on Thursday 21 October 2004

agree to #41

doenerbude said on Thursday 21 October 2004

#41: Higher limits will only lead to idle clones.

jack said on Thursday 21 October 2004

#41 why do you need 3 bouncers, ridiculous :OO

bar said on Thursday 21 October 2004

#25 Maybe you just know these lame protection bots which do rubbish like DEOPALL or RECOVER >.< Protection bots have to react fast, so one bot per channel is not enough to stop a takeover. So I have some bots inside the channel (2 or 3) and one or more outside (for whoising and removing Q flags - things which do not need chanop state) - bot now I have to ask for more than one master flag, and that sucks >.

timefx said on Friday 22 October 2004

Well, i dont really think the changes are good for everybody. There are some liking those changes made and there are many, disliking the changes made to Q. Whats the meaning of privacy here ? Who cares about Q flags of someone else ? I dont think I have any advantage because of other users not bein able to see my access list. This is not privacy, its just holding back informations about other users. And why should i not see my own Qbans ? Is this also privacy ? Its more like pretending...

variable-worm said on Friday 22 October 2004

bLeh next update will be a command to move the Q bot :D please :

banaanss said on Friday 22 October 2004

#45: If you use L or Q properly you don\'t need these \'protection\' bots.

magpie said on Friday 22 October 2004

good job Quakenet!

frone said on Friday 22 October 2004

i have a suggestion. if 2 users are authed with same auth, or for example you are on 2 bnc\'s and authed with same account and somebody trys to auth, he gets the msg \"-Q- Too many users AUTH\'d to this account.\" than it woould be good if the other 2 people get a msg, that a person with this and this host tryd to auth with same auth. i hope you understood what i meant :)

didic said on Friday 22 October 2004

#50: Q does tell you when people auth to an account to which you are already auth\'d.

magpie said on Friday 22 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

spliffy_nl said on Saturday 23 October 2004

add-on: make it so i cant joined +b chans at all and its ok, but dont do it half!!

spliffy_nl said on Saturday 23 October 2004

\"Only CHANLEVs for common channels are shown in a Q WHOIS, like L.\" I like loads of changes except this one, now you can\'t see whois the real owner of some chan or not. (fake etc)

{gpw}shadow said on Saturday 23 October 2004

#53 your suggestion would require for some chans to have more than 45 bans added (which isnt possible) k that could be lifted, but the banlists of these channels would explode then. Q needs to know that youre joining the channel in order to set the ban, it just knows youre joining the chan, when you have \"joined\" it. So it wont work to set the ban without the user joining the chan.

netzi said on Saturday 23 October 2004

/msg Q authedusers or smth like that should return the number of authed users on your auth (and ip\'s or hosts etc)

eldonor said on Saturday 23 October 2004

too #10: i also prefer seeing my own Q-Bans, so i see who is lame against me directly and don\'t wonder afterwards about that I am banned. it\'s easier, in a massban, to figure out who set them. the reason might be alot of people wine about their QBans, but i think anyway, it would reach out if only others don\'t see these bans. Greetings, Christian

ev1lk1ng said on Sunday 24 October 2004

but the other stuff is nice. good job.

ev1lk1ng said on Sunday 24 October 2004

OH YEAH!!!! thats the best update you`ve ever made! the end of this flagtrading-shit and so on....i just think there could be more auths allowed then 2 (might be between 3 and 5) - but i think everybody can live with that... in fact: you did a great step to prevent this network from takeovers, wannabee \'VIPs\' and all the other dumb ppl ;) NICE WORK QUAKENET! *wooohooo* :D

thommy said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

che2k said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Nice changing!!! Now, those lame Q-Trades and mass +b flagging will have a end (I Hope) :p Very nice :) Now Q isnt for trading and laming...

roadrunner said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

b2k-s3x-styler said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

You are not allowed to request L to this channel.

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

lol :)

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

in QuakeNet we trust !

che2k said on Sunday 24 October 2004

all my comments are denied :\\ good job qnet.staff

the-pgk said on Sunday 24 October 2004

Damn, I like the restrictions on no. authed with one account, but to remove public access :/ Q whois info is very useful to those of the anticheat community, gives us information such as the owners of a clan and whether a cheater is still in that clan. On the other hand it would stop the Q whois boasters. Maybe display known chanlevs and owners of uknown channels? Thanks anyway Qnet, spose its for the best.

|o|dussander said on Sunday 24 October 2004

nice changes , now please delete the unnecessary Q chanlev +b, which nobody need in time with +x hosts and bouncers, quit L and give every body with an avarage of 10 User Q. Then theses kiddie actions like idle clones... hopefully will stop. ^_^

z0o said on Monday 25 October 2004

I must say what i think about this... Now can people steal Q-owners from others and the real owners dosnt know anything who have take it.. why ? he cant see the owners of the channel.. omg i dont think just that function is good.. Okey.. it stopping qflags trading (good) //xenix

xenix said on Tuesday 26 October 2004

Quote: If anybody approaches you claiming to be staff, ... , you should ignore the person and report them to #feds. Last time I reported one of those, they simply told me to ignore the person... I thought the point of reporting them was to take actions against that person?

~mayhem said on Tuesday 26 October 2004

After reporting it to #feds, we evaluate it and decide how to deal with it, which is in most cases simply to inform the user that we do not run a network service called \"Q-WARNING\" or \"Q-HACKER\", nor do they wear a glasses, a moustache and a funny nose. Occassionally we do actually get someone reporting something that merits attention, but those cases are few and far between, most of the time \"Ignore it\" suffices.

deckard said on Tuesday 26 October 2004

What about the duty of clantag? And the idea of different bouncers, to organize all works, with the nick, it is meant for. I cant support ppl with my clannick, as 1st my organisation won\'t give me op with my clannick and ppl wont think, i belong to the organisation. so at least, there are 2 bouncers needed... but what about playing another game, in another clan? And you have a Q Acc since Doom1 and from now on, you can only use it in 2 of 3 bncs... an unimportant change from my point of view..

nbf|knuddelding said on Wednesday 27 October 2004

(00:00:12) -Q- You are not known or banned on this channel and can\'t dump the userlist! I got a +b in that channel and I can\'t see the chanflags there. Either change the message Q gives when asking for a channel where you got +b or just make it you aint known there imo :)

{han}ascendent said on Wednesday 27 October 2004

That\'s exactly what it says #81

particles said on Thursday 28 October 2004

I dont like it :/ 1. is good, but it will be better when i can set it up how many users can be authe\'d 2. is not good, why shouldnt i see where I banned? 3. Why do you not delete L and give Q for all ? thats quite better ... and one bad thing is that the maximum of chanlevs for L is 30, but for Q u need a average of 50 users.. and most people are not every time online. Please set it higher, or the avarage users in a channel down. to the rest, thats not very interesting and mir

horst said on Thursday 28 October 2004

When Q will be in every channel, then it will be overloaded i think

michalm said on Thursday 28 October 2004

Hence why a new Q is under development.

abdul said on Thursday 28 October 2004

#48 There can still be takeovers. One user opped a user who faked a name - another user lost his auth to an auth hacker - another user had a mIRC script which allowes hackers to execute commands (I think he got it via Internet Explorer) To stop takeovers no-one should have permissions in any channel, but then no-one can control them :( And security bots can do more than stopping takeovers. I saw more than 1000 clients joining a channel the same time and L won\'t help there.

timefx said on Friday 29 October 2004

gw

sqeeb said on Saturday 30 October 2004

good

pgmember said on Sunday 31 October 2004

Why you don\'t add a feature that the channel owner can\'t be kicked this will reduce the ovtakes a lot. Sorry 4 my bad english :P

gis said on Sunday 31 October 2004

Nice one on new feature #1 now u can just auth twice and noone will compromise ur account ;)

pc-001 said on Sunday 31 October 2004

great !

lonek said on Monday 01 November 2004

nice update, is it the end of Q trade ? :\')

miaou said on Monday 01 November 2004

Since you limited T-Online users to 2 connects at once, that meant a channel limit of 40 for t-dialin users. The limit of 2 logins per account however creates new problems for T-Online users, because of the 24 hour disconnects that T-Online enforces, because 2 timing clients (one client per 20 channels) will remain in QuakeNet after reconnecting (after redialling), so it\'s not possible to automatically AUTH at connect, thus not possible to set mode +x before rejoining the channels.

ibh|123 said on Tuesday 02 November 2004

Can you thus please increase MAXCHANNELS to 50 or 100 for t-dialin users, to compensate for the above mentioned limitations? This change would remove the need for more than one client for users that want to stay on more than 20 channels as well as make instant re-AUTHing possible again. If you\'re concerned about the higher channel limit being abused, you could limit the increased MAXCHANNELS value to AUTHed users, so unAUTHed users will still be limited to 20 channels, AUTHed users to 50 or 100

ibh|123 said on Tuesday 02 November 2004

Here\'s an idea. Disconnect from IRC *BEFORE* you are automatically disconnected.

magpie said on Tuesday 02 November 2004

#94: About raising MAXCHANNELS for certain users: From a technical point of view this isn\'t possible without major modifications in our server software and won\'t be added therefore. About raising it for authed users only: Same as above applies. About being on more than 20 channels: There is no need for being on that much channels as you can hardly chat on 20 channels simultanously anyway (Yes, QuakeNet is a *chat* network, not a place where people gather up in order to idle together).

skx said on Tuesday 02 November 2004

Well this is just great work, i hope the damn massqban lame stops at least now... #89 how to realize that? A /kick command is executed on a client, the chanlev is saved on QuakeNet\'s bots. If you want to prevent being kicked by a takeover crew just don\'t let them get flags in your channel. It\'s your own fault when your channel is being taken over. You should take part in one of QuakeNet\'s security issues on #tutorial next time.. Nice work QuakeNet! :)

sn4k3 said on Wednesday 03 November 2004

ok, thanks for the quick replies anyway

ibh|123 said on Wednesday 03 November 2004

#54: this shouldn\'t be a problem, all members are listed @ the homepages, without a homepage the channel shouldn\'t have a Q bot. But if it does, so lets give you the flag +a (this is the same as nothing ^^) and then you if he is or is not, or is well known on this channel :D #89: i like that idea, but this is not possible in the nature of IRC, and i don\'t think its good that every channelowner has the status of IRC Operator. good ideas from the Qnet team. how about paid commercial trusts?

killerchiller said on Saturday 06 November 2004

nice changes :o)

xab said on Sunday 07 November 2004

great updates, can we have Q report \"user offline\" when doing a whois on #authnick and theres nobody online using the nick? like L does.. ;)

deeps said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Nice changes, but I think that +b flags should be shown in whoamis, because it would be good to know if you are banned from a channel or not.

gerrit said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

I would like to see an invisible flag which users can set in Q or Q9 where if someone ONLY knows a persons *authname* but not their current nick, Q will say user is invisible (like on undernet) instead of giving out their nicks freely and will cut down on stalk-type abuse, since they won\'t have any leads to follow up (especially if his banned from the invisible user\'s channels).

red_robot said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

also agree with #102 yes they should be visible either as channels as before or as statistics ie -Q- You\'re banned on 4 channel(s) this information should still be user-domain in some form or another, either that be a whoami request or even by email..

red_robot said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

You will know when you join the channel if you are banned, as you\'ll be, erm, banned. Knowing you are banned in #random_channel_name_that_you_dont_join isn\'t going to make a blind bit of difference is it?

salteh said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

reset function works or not?cos i,m victim of a account hack,did a reset and recieved a new pass on my account email but after trying to logon with new pass ive got the message:account suspended /reason compromised or do i have to wait till the period of time in my email is over.??

ggggggvd said on Sunday 06 February 2005