Re: Overriding reflector settings ?

Jason Williams (
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:43:31 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Brian O'Shea wrote:
> However, it seems that the allow mechanism is being used to let more than
> just the administrator have access, based on whether someone has paid more
> money, or some other criteria.

The only other alternative at this point (since a majority of people DON'T
have MeetingPoint), are fancy CGI scripts which use one-time-admits to
allow people onto the reflector.

> I think we need a new feature, call it privilige for lack of something
> better, and allow you to select the mix of priviliged users and
> non-priviliged users. Once the maximum number of priviliged users are
> connected, further priviliged users are treated as non-priviliged.

This sounds like a neat idea...
max-priv-users for how many privileged users that can be on the
conference. So if it were 5, 5 more above the max-participants (or
max-senders...whichever limit is maxed) would be allowed on assuming they
match an IP or IP mask in the privilege list.

I'd like to see it differ from allow in the aspect that it wouldn't allow
them to lurk. Most reflectors I've seen use this type of mechanism do it
strictly to allow members to get on. They don't really want members
lurking which "allow" lets them do.

Then "privilege -c <ID> <IP>" to start adding IPs to the privileged list.

On a somewhat related note, I always wished there was a way to impose
percentages allowed on lurkers. If a conference has a 20 participant
maximum, and a 10 lurker maximum, having 15 senders and 5 lurkers isn't so
bad. But having 10 lurkers and 1 sender just always has bothered me. I
always wished I could impose something like "no more than 40% of the
conference are allowed to be lurkers up to a maximum of max-lurkers"

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|