• 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 Connection Restrictions

Posted by magpie on Monday 08 November 2004

Due to large amounts of abuse, and trojan clients, QuakeNet has decided to place a limit of two connections per host for users with hostnames ending with the following:

  • .wanadoo.fr

  • .wanadoo.nl

  • .ono.com

  • .bezeqint.net

  • .proxad.net

  • .pooles.rima-tde.net
    Any users attempting to make more than two connections to the network will receive an error message of "Too many connections from your host", as well as having their connection refused. We apologise to any legitimate users connecting from these hosts, but the situation has become unavoidable.

Please log in to post comments.
so why cant normal hosts that have a 5 clone limit just have their 6th connection refused with this reason rather than a gline?

red_robot said on Monday 08 November 2004

10000000 % agree with BigRedMachine

romano said on Monday 08 November 2004

I dont have a problem with that, even if I am a user of T-Online (Deutsche Telekom) Eventually you lower the limit for ALL User Hosts to 2 connections, all the same.. cya

roy said on Monday 08 November 2004

The next step to decrease the abuse.

c1b said on Monday 08 November 2004

VERY bad for user who have to pay for some lame abusers who use the same internet provider BAD move from quakenet staff...

bar said on Monday 08 November 2004

Normal users don\'t even need more connections than 2. Besides, there is stated that the situation had become unavoidable.

vertical said on Monday 08 November 2004

Well done.

r3fl3x said on Monday 08 November 2004

People have to keep in mind that 5 connections from one single host is an *awful* lot. Personally I vouch for 2 connections from one host for all users, and perhaps raise the channel limit from 20 to 25 per connection if people are complaining about it. This should take care of any unforeseen situations. Was this idea considered? If so, why wasn\'t it implemented dare I ask? If not, give it a thought and perhaps a period of trial.

raz said on Monday 08 November 2004

#2: Not possible, that would render trusts useless #9: No normal, sane person needs to be in more than 20 channels at once

darko said on Monday 08 November 2004

#10, I don\'t think so either. What about the rest of the suggestion I brought up, was this idea considered? If so, why wasn\'t it implemented dare I ask? If not, give it a thought and perhaps a period of trial.

raz said on Monday 08 November 2004

nice one ;)

owner said on Monday 08 November 2004

nice Qnet i love it it will stop alot of spammers/poxy´s

{dra}psycho said on Monday 08 November 2004

Some people may not like these restrictions, but since T-Online is restricted due to abuse as well, it\'s only fair. Besides that you really don\'t need more than two connections as a normal user anyway.

jack said on Monday 08 November 2004

nop 2 connections is okay .. is weird allmost all spam comes germany or a other east europan land or is it just me

{dra}psycho said on Monday 08 November 2004

other _east_ european countries like .fr and .nl *doh*

buster_de said on Monday 08 November 2004

... but their\'s no spam from all this western european countries like russia, poland etc. ^_^

pr0vil said on Monday 08 November 2004

okay, you want to limit abuses.. but now I can\'t connect to Qnet with my 4 pc and when the members of my team come playing for counter-strike matches they are kicked so please allow \"normal\" user to be thrusted easier...

averoth said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

on reconnait bien là la connerie de quakenet.. :)

amlette said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

.wanadoo.fr .proxad.net French connection, stupid french, dont click the links who are past on quakenet !

amlette said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Quote: \"so why cant normal hosts that have a 5 clone limit just have their 6th connection refused with this reason rather than a gline?\" I think it\'s better to refuse the last connection which is not allowed than to glined all clients connected from the same IP, because it happens that uncarfully you run twice your irc client and if the limit has already be reached (ex: lan) it\'s not fair for the local users :P PS: my IP (*proxad.net) wasn\'t allowed to be thrust, but now I realy need it t

averoth said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Well done. Indeed.

ruutana said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

What about students who pay a internet line for 3 or 4 users... so lame qnet

bar said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Personally, I think 2 Connections is enough. 20 Channels is also enough. I don\'t even want to try and guess how much Bandwidth QuakeNet uses in a week. If you want your LAN to be able to work on QuakeNet, get a Trust. Same with Students. Trusts don\'t cost anything...

nannahooter said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

#23: Make only valuable comments. If you can\'t do that then stop wasting both our and your time.

abdul said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

nice ;)

spioenchen said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

bar said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

#27: Stick to constructive comments, and don\'t insult people. If you can\'t do this, refrain from posting comments.

magpie said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

General note: you will also no longer be able to get trusts for the above providers (well they CAN be added but you\'ll still be limited to 2 connections.. rendering the trust useless)

darko said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

I agree, 2 connections is enough. Good work.

creep said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

Good Job! I\'m one of the T-Online users whose are limited to 2 connections and now we aren\'t longer the only ones with restricted connections. Not all germans are abusers and germany is not the only country in the world...

gerrit said on Tuesday 09 November 2004

#29: .... this way you REALY PENALIZE users that have done nothing wrong on the network. A such injustice may cause MUCH MORE ABUSES on Quakenet. I heard that german people does the most takeovers over qnet.. :x :x :x. Too much restrictions leads to rebelion

averoth said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

Generally I think this is a good idea. But people from those hostmask shall be able to get a trust. This would be fair.

ts_tequila said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

#33 that’s the problem, darko said that the 2 connection limit overrides any trust implementation, which is a bad idea, the ircd should be worked on to make trusts override the limit (for any host), not the limit override the trust.

red_robot said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

We keep a GBL (Global Black List) and we make bots to auto-kick-ban proxys from secured channels. those are in our list :)

chaoskiller said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

nice update =)

miaou said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

yes i agree with bigredmachine, rather to refuse then gline. about two connections from those hosts, good job indeed:)

sukle said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

pls limit all connections to two from one ip! only the trusted ip\'s can connect more. 2 connections should be enought for all users! greatings era!

~eraser~ said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

Limiting the connections from some other ISPs would be useful as well.

nav1 said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

I think you should automatically g-line open proxys - there´s at least \"some\" big forums for public proxy-lists. Wouldn´t it be usefull to auto-sync servers with those lists so they´re useless for spamming or spreading Trojans on Quakenet? BTW: Most Proxys I´ve seen come from comcast and attbi - my opinion - and I´ve NEVER seen ANY of .ono.com .bezeqint.net or .proxad.net .. But good step - go on..

cookie said on Wednesday 10 November 2004

#40: Syncing with open proxy lists might be a bad idea. That way someone who is in control of the list, can have any user g-lined if he wanted to. I\'ve seen a lot of (proxy) clones from comcast and attibi too. But also a lot from proxad.net. There are most likely a lot from the other hosts aswell, why else restrict their connections?

chromix said on Thursday 11 November 2004

nice thx Quakenet

{-}bac said on Thursday 11 November 2004

yeah, good job quakenet, lets make things better =)

dopeh said on Thursday 11 November 2004

This is not good...... i mean i host (on my wanadoo.nl) a Gather bot for the game counter-strike, and i have my own connection, and i am building a 3rd bot that will do the banning/anti takeover stuff in the channel. That is 3 mIRC clients, on 1 connection..... GG quakenet.

acid|burn said on Thursday 11 November 2004

Shit :( I am restrict to 2 Connection now :(((((

exeral said on Thursday 11 November 2004

So far I have 947 of those advertise spamming trojans/proxies blacklisted. :|

zeep- said on Friday 12 November 2004

For 1 Person the limited 2 connections isn\'t a problem, but at LAN\'s and Colleges it\'s fu**in sh*t.

lapidus said on Friday 12 November 2004

Good Job Quakenet staff ;)

secyritas said on Friday 12 November 2004

nice update! i will like it! :D

iss-seek0r said on Friday 12 November 2004

And why dont you simply limit \"clones\" from people who arent authed ? ( If 3 men with the same host are authed ... They are not trojan ) Sometime i think that quakenet will that we change servers

u-proutie said on Friday 12 November 2004

Well done! wanadoo.fr is just a abuce... Like T-Online... In my opinion, 2 Connections are too much. Better 1... :/ But ok, now those lame abuse hosts are restricted :D

roadrunner said on Saturday 13 November 2004

#32 you are not being opressed & no injustice has taken place - your use of Quakenet is a privilege, not a right as I\'m sure you\'ve heard many times before. These decisions are made for the benefit of the network and it\'s users and not to cause inconvinience or disruption, please remember that. Besides, as mentioned before most users don\'t need more than two connections never mind more than one.

amrc said on Saturday 13 November 2004

#51: Neither all Wanadoo nor all T-Online users are abusive, the majority of the T-Online users doesn\'t even use QuakeNet, so they can hardly abuse it.

jack said on Saturday 13 November 2004

wanadoo.fr and proxad.net are huge french ISP. It is stupid to think that there are only spammers from that type of hosts. I have 4 workstations on my local network, some people may need 3 or 4 connections to Quakenet from their local network, but they won\'t be able to get a trust because of the dynamic IP address and the generic hostname.

dinesh2 said on Saturday 13 November 2004

OMG NOT nice damn I have wanadoo.nl and I really dont host any trojan shit or something like that. But sometimes I have more then 2 connections ..... (is this restriction perm or just for an X time)

dyno911 said on Saturday 13 November 2004

I find that this is a good resolution to the recent trojan abuse. I have found that wanadoo.nl are the \'new t-dialin\'. Maybe this will knock some sense into you, and also, if you were in a university, I doubt the university would use a normal ISP connection, they\'d use one with a static IP most probably.

particles said on Saturday 13 November 2004

A VERY bad solution. Effective, but unfair. Why dont you put a restriction on 2 connections for every ISP? Imho you can work out some solutions in a better way, this is certainly not the best.

sgtstrider said on Saturday 13 November 2004

life\'s a bitch. deal with it.

stevoo said on Sunday 14 November 2004

As a temp solution i think it\'s fine, i get 5-10 reports a day about spam bots in our main channel :( Quite anoying that users can\'t idle without getting spammed with porn links...

gumli said on Sunday 14 November 2004

#54 I support your comment.

amlette said on Monday 15 November 2004

Quakenet allready makes block mode for spam bots: mode +i user (you don\'t appear on /who for random spamming). mode +R user (spam bots can\'t query you). mode +r chan (spam bots can\'t join the channel). And if the spam bot has an auth, you can go on #feds or #help \"to carry complaint\". AND if your chan is subject to lot of join/part (flood), you can put a \"limit users\" (manually, with TheQBot or with a free BotService).

amlette said on Monday 15 November 2004

My comment to this, is it stinks. Even it\'s a good way to stop \"spammers\", or \"abusers\". In some ways I agree, in other ways I don\'t agree. My meaning is, it might be the same for all. Even notall is abusers, but, example, 2 clients per host, if it is NOT trusted. And else, it can be trusted to have more clients. Also, on 3rd client connected, AUTO-GLINED! :) Anyway, quakenet staff decide the things they like. And not always users\' comments can do anything about it. /DarkDeviL

darkdevil2 said on Monday 15 November 2004

mhm i think its a good solution but many ppl say, u just need 2 conenctions... my friends router is for 4 people and if u got these g-lined :/

blaze-owner said on Monday 15 November 2004

at one side it\'s being a good thing, since i\'ve seen many abusers from wanadoo.nl and most of the french ppl are clicking all sorts of links on IRC, but in nl we have rooms with like 4 or 5 ppl on 1 internet connnection and all using Qnet.. k you can say it\'s not a right that you can use it but a privilege but still.. it\'s kinda unfair imo but k the other side of it is that it creates less spam :) which is good ofc ;)

fdnl~robbierzz| said on Monday 15 November 2004

#63: I still feel sorry that I can have 5 clients, aswell as it didn\'t hurt me. Every people have their meanings. My opinion is that QuakeNet either should make restrictions for fx, *@*, and not only *@*.proxad.net - justs to give an example. It might be that same for all, that\'s my meaning :)

darkdevil2 said on Monday 15 November 2004

it isn\'t affecting me tho.. but many ppl in holland have that wanadoo.nl for their complete housing (with 3 - 6 ppl in the houses).

fdnl~robbierzz| said on Monday 15 November 2004

errrrrrrrr i dont no if this is the place but cud u tell me if u i can change the name of me channel

freeraven said on Tuesday 16 November 2004

#67 This is definatly *not* the correct place to ask for such stuff. 1. Here, you are supposed to write comments about this newstopic 2. Quakenet wont \"rename\" your channel. Just part this channel and join a new one. This is the only way to \"rename\" a channel.

doomie said on Wednesday 17 November 2004

I don\'t see why you dont just restrict 2 connections to all hosts. A friend of mine has an internet cafe with 12 machines all sharing a 2mb line (spain). now only 2 of those computers can connect at once. If your gonna restrict hostmasks to 2 connections do it to everyone.

mrblade said on Wednesday 17 November 2004

Thank you! I have to pay 20 € to have a bnc. that given pleasure.

exeral said on Wednesday 17 November 2004

#70: 20€?! You can buy bouncers for 1-2€/month.

r3fl3x said on Thursday 18 November 2004

My Opinion : It\'s LAME Your Opinion : I don\'t give a f... (as quakenet) I\'m on Wanadoo, and I don\'t think this will help, because trojan flood will still continue, and there will still be stupid people to click on these stupid links, everywhere in the world... Either you just check everything that is said by \"people\" and G-line trojans, either you put a LONG \"check-time\" before joining any # or querying(like 1 minute)for non-authed users Once applied, no more j/p flood, no more troja

raytcharlze said on Thursday 18 November 2004

Had your entire ISP been glined you would be claiming it was lame, this is a compromise.

salteh said on Thursday 18 November 2004

Besides that we\'re not some CIA-like network reading all messages sent by our users, which would be technically impossible anyway.

jack said on Friday 19 November 2004

ok

koxu said on Friday 19 November 2004

#71: Some people gives also their frends free bouncers. | #73: I agree. But still, I think it is better, eihter to make the restrictions on all providers. Or none. Seting O\'s clone limit to 2 (gline on 3rd connection) would be a little better. (at my opinion.) | #74: With all that spam I got, on quakenet, at the time I was more on quakenet than at the moment, a trojanscan like thing, checking private user <-> user messages would be a little impossible, due to the lag, with all 150-200k users.

darkdevil2 said on Friday 19 November 2004

use = users, - even. My message got too long :\'( I\'m an author. And whenever I write, I\'ll write novels :p

darkdevil2 said on Friday 19 November 2004

I know that the 1st solution wouldn\'t be a good one, that\'s why I insisted on the other : Don\'t limit authed users to only 2 connection, Don\'t pretend you aren\'t able to do this with all the bots that are there, almost on that purpose. You just have to put a delay between connection and joining/querying/etc, to any other nick than Q or Q@cserve... with that delay, trojans will be much less able to flood, a lot less than having still 2 connections left...

raytcharlze said on Friday 19 November 2004

And at same time, it wouldn\'t be \"painful\" to non-authed users, and if they don\'t want to wait 1 minute, they\'d just have to AUTH their ass on Qnet, like everyone else, thus permitting them to hide their IP, and avoiding some OS vulnerabilities as well...This would also ease the work of the spam bot, as it would refrain people from j/p flooding, and as in order to come on a #, they would more likely have to be AUTHed...

raytcharlze said on Friday 19 November 2004

As we say in France \"Jamais 2 sans 3\" : a trojan with 5 connections = 5*60 flood per minute (assuming he does 1 per second with is the least it seems to do)/ a trojan with 2 connection, has still 40% / a trojan with 5 connection but with AUTH required, or 1 minute wait : 5 flood per minute... Now tell me, what would be the most efficient way ? remember the trojan wont be able to auth, as they can\'t go through the new subscribe page...

raytcharlze said on Friday 19 November 2004

and last but not least : Remember not to take all credits for \"stopping the flood\", if it dropped like that, it\'s more likely that users became aware of being infected, and cleaned their Computers, by themselves... nothing more.

raytcharlze said on Friday 19 November 2004

Do try and stop spamming these comments, it gets tiresome. Constructive comments are welcome, incessant whinging isn\'t.

magpie said on Saturday 20 November 2004

Comment has been removed by QuakeNet staff

t4rmg4ss said on Saturday 20 November 2004

n1 :)

alc4tr4z said on Saturday 20 November 2004

#10 - I am currently using 20 channels, and I am not insane. A bigger channel limit would be SOO useful :D

derobrash said on Sunday 21 November 2004

it\'s a good idea, but i think it\'s not well done, normaly I just use one connection , but i often do lan-parties and then, there are five - six connections necessary... should I change from t-online to another provider ? no :-(

tnx~fry said on Sunday 21 November 2004

1. one question why cant ya tell FoxMuld or the guy whos coding O atm not to gline > 5 client users but just kill the next1, then ghost users that rejoin wouldnt get glined but forced to wait :) 2. ok lowering the usercount to 2 may help a lil bit but I guess the big fishes simply get another ISP/get a free bnc/use proxies (2mins until P scans u are enough to take over) or such stuff.

zerosky said on Sunday 21 November 2004

I don\'t even see why you\'d want two connections from a host. There\'s you, which is one connection and there\'s no need for anything like an eggdrop (or other ircbot flavor since we have Q or L). Anyway, it seems that some people at least need two, but three is (from my point of view) totally useless and/or pointless so a fixed max. host allowance of two for everyone would be great.

madsekci said on Sunday 21 November 2004

When do you start doing this with AOL? It\'s the world biggest provider and available in nearly every country.

sephiroth said on Sunday 21 November 2004

As Stevoo stated: life\'s a bitch, deal with it! This is how the world works (most of the time). If too many from one place abuse a certain system, that particular place will get punished. We punished Adolf in 1945, The US punished Saddam in.... oh, right now. And thus Quakenet is punishing spam/virus/retards whom all use ISP wanadoo.fr .wanadoo.nl .ono.com .bezeqint.net .proxad.net .pooles.rima-tde.net Deal with it. Get one connection / user. Not one connection / five or more. Yeah..

lfl-ass said on Sunday 21 November 2004

well what i suppose 2 do if i dont remember with what email i register to Qnet? please answer me thx

s1lnece said on Sunday 21 November 2004

What\'s about *.optonline.net, *.cox.net and *.comcast.net? I see them very often being abused for flood attacks. Btw. Q\'s banning procedure is not very effective after a lag as it bans and unbans the proxies all the time.

sp33d3r said on Sunday 21 November 2004

Why did qnet-admins reset all passwords? DB hijacking? Then you should tell your fellow users, maybe they had used their qnet-auth passwords on more than one site...

jmeister|tmg said on Sunday 21 November 2004

Lost my account due to this \"here! have a new password!\" thing. My emailaddress has expired and now I can\'t bloody auth. And the Quakenet Security email address works like Saddam Husseins hiding place did. Not at all. Good work!

lfl-ass said on Sunday 21 November 2004

same here, thx

petepat- said on Monday 22 November 2004

<@Lanmate> ^Balou^: if your email address is compromised, its not our problem -!- mode/#help [+b *!*@ANantes-101-1-2-84.w81-53.abo.wanadoo.fr] by Helpy -!- dkl was kicked from #help by Helpy [Trojan Client] That was funny!!! I can\'t auth and change my passwd because I lost my e-mail, and I\'m banned from #help probably due to my warmanager bot. The first line is incredible !!! :D

d-light-xb said on Monday 22 November 2004

Hi Cus the the News \"NEW PASSWORD @ QUAKNET\" doesn\'t has any comment button i need to write it here, i always get a notice from Q which contains : Notice from Q : The email address wasn\'t found! Perhaps you mistyped your address?.. thats not true :P could some one help me ? i cant join feds or quaknet ( +r ) :( re

alv1n said on Monday 22 November 2004

i have a problem with your newest feature. my auth wont work. if i request the new pass to my email but the new password dosent work again. I can join #help only as authed user and the forum are Forbidden. plz fix the problem with auth

thunderbeat said on Monday 22 November 2004

I can\'t auth me. why?? pleas tell me! you find me @ Quakenet #mofd my nick is MofD|zcIpt

nylle said on Monday 22 November 2004

nice.. my old email isnt working anymore so I lost all my channels

aer0u said on Monday 22 November 2004

hi I need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my acount password has been changed , i try msg Q requestpassword nonenicks@home.ro , but he send me another acount !!!!!!! I tried that acount and I got G-lined - Ping? Pong! - connection abuse. - Closing Link: nicu by b0rk.uk.quakenet.org (G-lined) my ip is 81.89.5.160 and my account is blazz3 plz help ,I had +n an a chanel an that acount :( sorry about my english I am from Romania

blazz3 said on Monday 22 November 2004

:/

x|toof said on Monday 22 November 2004

If only the email to Security Staff would work. But it doesn\'t. PLEASE admins, give me the email to your Scurity Staff.

lfl-ass said on Monday 22 November 2004

or :(

jbpa|chulla said on Monday 22 November 2004

yeah, much thx... lost 3 Qs and some Ls... but hey, this is quakenet with his nice admins who doesn\'t care for the minority... :)

eyedacor said on Monday 22 November 2004

I am 100% saddened and disappointed in how Quakenet is handling this password change. They have taken my channels away and a dear old login/auth that I have had since for ever. I loathe you for this. Shame on Quakenet.

lfl-ass said on Monday 22 November 2004

The password change was a god damned violation of my Q rights. The main problem now is that this \"forum\" is the only place where one can tunr to complain or vent opinions on Quakenet. And please.. don\'t say \"go to #help and get help\" because quakenet doesn\'t offer help. Short piss-off-we-can\'t-help-you crap.I have used mIRC and Quakenet since 1997and never have I been this fed up and sick of it.Give us a proper forum and useful, working problem solving tools instead of pissed off admins i

lfl-ass said on Monday 22 November 2004

off admins with no executive powers what so ever. If an admin wants to contact me now it can be done at magnus.arvidsson@edu.nykoping.se hope to hear from you soon.

lfl-ass said on Monday 22 November 2004

Y a pas que les Fran&#231;ais (qui sont les plus contraints ici) qui pirates. Quakenet &#224; fait une tr&#233;s mauvaise op&#233;ration pour eux meme, tous ces personnes iront vers d\'autre moyen de communication ( Msn, Yahoo Messenger, et plus autre) It isn\'t only the French person who hack on internet (trojan for exemple) QuakeNet had a very bad made for himself. All these users go to another IRC server or communication system (Msn, Yahoo Messenger, and any more)

GaBiDeMaRs said on Sunday 02 January 2005

just got g-lined with a lot of other spanish users since we all use the .pooles.rima-tde.net and stupid proxy cache... spain is a special case... because the 90% of the internet users are on the same line... because there is no other alternatives... so what can we do to connect? we are a lot that cannot join... Ping? Pong! - This provider/IP range is banned to prevent connection abuse from user \"chente\"/\"putamo\".

gOrrito said on Tuesday 11 January 2005

I need only 3 connections, so I have to change of ISP to run my own bouncer? Stupid tbh. Sigh.

tu-meteor said on Friday 28 January 2005

Man this is *censor*... will it be permanent or not?

kreativity said on Saturday 05 February 2005

:)

Zoubinator said on Wednesday 09 March 2005

I tried applying for a trust for my student flat, but was refused on the basis that my hostname was a generic one dished out by blueyonder (and getting them to change the reverse dns records is not possible). 5 connections is fine, as only 4 of us live here, but if a limit to 2 came in for everyone, we would really need a trust! Just my two cents.

PRoto-Col said on Sunday 20 March 2005

In response to #114.. Applying for a trust wouldn\'t work, regardless of the generic hostname or not. I have the same problem and tested the trust solution with a friendly ircop regardless of my generic hostname. This special 2 client limitation takes precedence over any trusts that might be present, so it wouldn\'t change anything :(

Thorarin said on Monday 28 March 2005

sorry i diden\'t know i was trying to get more bot but i diden\'t know and sturr ok

Warnl said on Monday 02 May 2005

I don\'t care bout that, the host i am using is restricted to 2 connections for some time already. Why don\'t you limit all hosts to 2 connections, at least, this would be fair and you would have to bother about some idiots abusing their 5 connections abusivly. SIYB

SIYB said on Saturday 11 June 2005

this sucks, i\'ve 1 bro and friends who come evry weekend to play online and with this limit we cant play on some gameservices !!!!1111

unixblizz said on Sunday 14 August 2005

Today, at 2008-01-17, I can only connect ONE client, I am .rima-tde.net

trecemil500 said on Thursday 17 January 2008