Forums General Discussion Servers.ini (for Krejt)

Ok well the network in question (Axenet) is already in the servers.ini, but I have a question, in your little website thingy it says "At the moment
I can not add more then the random server (round robbin) of new networks" is there a reason for this? It sounds like you don't want to add a ton more servers, but then my question becomes, why do you have so many servers that are dead/dying? For example, you have irc.dal.net and irc.eu.dal.net, a simple /dns shows that both of these forward to the EXACT same IPs, so why do they need two entries for the same pool? Then we look at the actual DALnet servers, coins.dal.net, sodre.on.ca.dal.net, ced.se.eu.dal.net, omen.se.eu.dal.net, astro.ga.us.dal.net, twisted.ma.us.dal.net, and liberty.nj.us.dal.net they all resolve to the same IPs that irc.dal.net does. So why exactly does DALnet need to have the same pool listed 9 times when there are other servers out there that aren't listed at all or would like to have 1-2 additional servers listed?

Our big concern wasn't that you didn't add the individual servers, we asked to have our additional pools (irc.us.axenet.org, irc.eu.axenet.org, and irc.ca.axenet.org) listed but they too were rejected.

Would you please be able to give me a reason why this can't be added? (and yes to the best of my knowledge everything was submitted in the correct format).

Thanks.

You are asking this in the wrong place...unless of course all you wanted was some attention or have some warped thought of applying pressure. Since you say you already submitted your server, then you know the proper email addy to contact Krejt about this...if you dont, check the mIRC website.

Your comments about the DALnet servers are an exercise in futility at the moment, since DALnet has been under attack for some time now with servers up and down (which happens to be WHY they are resolving as they are).

Yes I know his email, I also know that he has never responded to a single email I ever sent him. And I also know that he frequents these boards so I was hoping perhaps he would answer here. I also assume there are other people out there would like to know the same answer since I know many people here run their own networks.

As for DALnet, if you do the research rather than just blindly assume, you will know that the servers I listed have delinked, they aren't up and down, they are gone. If you don't believe me, check the server list on their website or contact one of their irc operators and they will tell you they are gone. I know 100% for a fact twisted.dal.net is delinked, the owner couldn't take the DoS attacks any more so he left.

I didnt blindly assume anything. Yes, twisted delinked. As for the others, i was on two of them in the past couple days, so no, they are NOT gone, but are in fact up and down. Others, it isnt known if they will come back or not. I was responding to your comment about them resolving to the same thing. When the attacks have gotten so much worse, irc.dal.net was changed to resolve to 255.255.255.255 which essentially means it goes nowhere and ... oh piffle... i suggest YOU do YOUR research rather than insult me. It would be pointless for Krejt to even try to update the DALnet servers list at this time.

It is entirely possible that your emails were lost along with so much else during the fire at Uni of Twente. Only Krejt could answer that. I stand by my original response: email Krejt.

I do not react to server submissions (at [email]servers@mirc.com)[/email] if no reaction is needed. Only if I need additional info I ask for it or reply with the rather obvious default reaction to incomplete or otherwise lacking submissions. I do not confirm submissions. With the loads(!) of mail I recieve regarding the servers list there is no other way for me to handle them. No worries - when you recieve no reaction there normally is nothing wrong. And when you fear your email is lots I will not complain over a second submission, or a third. (but better not trigger my spam scripts, ok?)

I think discussing DALnet's server entries at the moment makes no sense at all. We dont need no research to know DALnet is in trouble. I think they deserve a little credit, ok? A lot of credit...
Apart from DALnet I'll try to answer your questions;

The reason for my little website thingy saying "At the moment I can not add more then the random server (round robbin) of new networks" has been discussed quite a lot before; the servers.ini is limited to about 32Kb, about 450 entries. Within that limited space I try to squeeze at least one server of every network available, stable, populated and reachable by -me-, preferably a round robbin. Only the large old networks have, often from a historical perspective, more servers in the list. Several very large newer ones also have a few more servers in the list.

There is room for about 450 entries, the list holds about 300 networks. Your network is competing with about 15 others in the 1200 users range... There are at least 40 larger networks. 10 of them are at least 10 times as large . I hope this demonstrates how I try to balance things a bit, and I think I do quite well, without having to spent half my day on calculations and statistics?

I actually agree with this question...

If it's good enough for new or growing networks to be handicapped to one server listing then it should be good enough for all. And for those that are wary of my intentions - no this isn't just another attack on Dalnet or the Big 4 either. It's just a case of fair being fair. If irc.dal.net doesn't currently resolve then that's simply a matter for them to sort out one way or another. I think there is an air of undue favouritism here. I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't get more than one entry, I'm just saying that all networks catered for should get the same number of entries in the list. Perhaps one entry is a good number. Who knows? Who cares? But yes, lets get the list fair for all and lets also lose the 'default setting'. I am sure that if one can set mIRC up (a five minute process maximum even for most newbies) then they are quite able to choose one from a list, which currently includes no less than 109 entries for the Big 4, Dalnet and Austnet combined. Yep, that's right a 1/4 of the list swallowed up by only 6 networks, which I might add some of which enjoy two seperate listings.

Lastly, I think this particular forum is exactly the place to raise the issue. It says "General discussion". Noticing that Krejt has replied I can assume that he agrees. Yes, Dalnet has been attacked, yes no-one knows why, yes people are on edge about it, but fairdinkum, please realise that references to Dalnet are not verbal attacks on that network or who runs it or who chats there. This is strictly a mIRC server list issue :-)

Frankly, I'd go with putting NO servers in automatically. I'd rather see it connect to a web page, that would give you a full roster of servers (which there are several types out now) and let the user decide what they want.

There would be no more complaining about "My server isn't in the list" or "My network isn't represented and we're the best". Some are worse than a 2 year old child :tongue:

A pretty good idea, as it could be updated far more often too.

Ok i understand the part about DALnet, still your text file says "Only Round Robin Pools", i submitted 3 new pools none were added. If its that much a hassle to add 3 new pools just do irc.eu.axenet.org.

I find it disappointing you didn't reply to the email though, i guess you'll probably get alot of requests but you could at least give a reason why a request was declined. Also, as code said alot of servers have DELINKED from DALnet, meaning they won't come back, why leave them in? You only have 450 places you say, remove the DALnet servers that have delinked then, and use 1 space to add irc.eu.axenet.org if you can?

Or any other network that is, my point is just why leave certain servers/networks in that clearly don't work nor will ever work. For instance twisted.dal.net points to twisted.gamesnet.net, doesn't really seem good to leave this does it? [Nevermind only did that last night]

Anyway you still make the calls i just find it disappointing you are clearly into favourism.

- CaliMonk

Tell them (mIRC Co) that mate, not me hehe

It was ment for Tjerk

If i submit you about 10 Networks in the servers.ini that no longer excist would you add irc.eu.axenet.org?

Because i can get you those. Seeming the list is 300 entries long and you (tjerk) not having alot of time chances are you never check if a network is still alive, thus its quite possible about 30 networks or so in the servers.ini don't even excist anymore. I myself know a few.

I'm willing to go by each network and see if the round robin pool work, would you be willing to add my simple request?

Thanks.

*Waaaaaaahhh*

I would imagine Tjerk uses sites like netsplit.de to quickly see whether a network is still functioning and whether it's maintaining a reasonable server/user base. As for all the stuff about adding more than one entry for smaller servers, which smaller servers get the extra entries? If some smaller servers get more than one, all the admins with similar sized networks will be out in force asking why theirs doesn't get the same treatment.

Oh my mistake i thought it was only fair that other networks get a chance too but i guess its normal for the big 5 networks to have 109 of the 300 entries, of which alot don't even work anymore.

Anyway this is going no where, i only asked to be treated fairly.

Also, karen if you don't have any usefull comments, why comment at all.

Yes, your mistake, the internet is not fair.

ANYWAY.... back to the topic, maybe the 'big 5' shouldn't take up such a large proportion of the list. But rather than trying to make things even by adding extra listings for smaller networks and bloating the ini file even more, I think it'd make more sense to just have less listings for the larger networks, thereby making it easier to go through and raising the chances of a smaller network being chosen by a user.

I agree with shortening it too, I mean what are the odds (assuming DALnet was still up and running ok) that the first 5 servers you choose from the list were all full/down? If you couldn't connect to those 5, most likely you are banned from all of DALnet. The only other thing I can suggest is maybe a "minimum users" requirment, I wouldn't say remove servers for it, but perhaps not add new ones below say 50-100 users. But even still, I would personally still like networks to be able to have more than one server listed, this isn't for the network's benefit it is for the users. They are able to find a server closer to them and therefore likely faster.

u know i do kinda like the direct to a wbepage with a full servers listing from all who submit it ...... altho that means more work to maintain it and such for ya all as opposed to maybe adding one server every release of mirc .. which is about the case at this point

10 networks that...
You dont get the point, do you? stop rambling about DALnet, focus on the idea of all networks larger then yours claiming more space in the list... and after that the smaller networks; that simply will not fit.

chances are you never check if a network is still alive...
Wrong, I have scripts doing that job for me. But, as with DALnet, a network not responding for a few days, or even weeks, doesn't mean their entry is skipped from the list immediately. So the (bi?)monthly update always has some broken entries. (Note however that the list included in a mIRC release is always smaller and only holds better established and stable networks.)

Well then answer me this, why does QuakeNet (which is larger than DALnet ever was) have 4 entries when DALnet has 15? Where is the logic there? If you are saying it is because these "10 networks" are larger, well then why does DALnet, EFnet, etc get so much listed when they are all smaller than QuakeNet...