Ban user

[marceldehaan80]

It would be great to have a option to ban users that don't behave.

[mcfnord]

If you run the server, you can determine the IP address of the user, and block it.

[ann0see]

Related: https://github.com/orgs/jamulussoftware/discussions/1057

[iknowkungfutoo]

It's been requested many times, but the dev team are reluctant to add it. It isn't a difficult task to accomplish; just a few lines of code to change for simple user management. Perhaps there is some political reason they do not wish to do it. Without this and with an increasing number of problematic users disrupting sessions for everyone, Jamulus will ultimately die and be replaced with another application with better "legitimate use of identifiable data" for server and user management.

[ann0see]

It's not that easy unfortunately - also technical limitations such as the fact that there are no accounts (and we don't really think that they should be added). So IP blocking would be the way. We'd need to find a way which works for everyone (remaining open by default) - and that's hard.

[iknowkungfutoo]

I have done it with IP blocking, a simple change of code to log user name and IP address to the log or separate file. A password-protected PHP script to list the last 1,000 users with a tick box and a "ban button". The script updates the iptables automatically when the ban button is pressed.

[mcfnord]

I hadn't heard before that there are "an increasing number of problematic users disrupting sessions for everyone." Would you say more about what you're seeing?

[dcorson-ticino-com]

I can only remember once being disturbed by someone.
After they didn't leave when we asked them we, the members of the group playing, simply soloed each other so we didn't hear anyone else.
That worked just fine and the disturber then left pretty quickly.
As I said, only once in about 4.5 years of weekly use.

[JacquesFreud]

I don't know if there is indeed 'an increasing number of problematic users disrupting sessions for everyone'. Sometimes you only need one problematic user to spoil the party for a lot of other players.

In the Western European servers there is a bass player who claims he should be allowed to play in any session he feels like. Even if there is a relatively fixed group of players who maybe befriended each other in the past years and who are perfectly happy to play their favourite tunes together, he thinks he can join in and demand his place. If the bass player of the group does not voluntarily give up his place, he TAKES it and plays OVER it. His argument: your server is a public place and there are no privileges. When the other members complain, he starts firing off huge stories in the chat with muddled talk of fallacies. He never uses a microphone, so normal conversation with him is never possible. When he feels driven into the well, he comes up with tales of hatred and fascism and only a clerical group of ‘haters’ would take it out on him. However, if you inquire around you about this figure's reputation, you hear the same complaints everywhere.

So, while there is no increasing number of disruptive users, there is almost constant disruption by this one figure.
I know the answer would be to put your group all on solo or to mute the annoying intruder, but groups can maybe want to stay open to new ideas from unexpected (and nice) players. (Also, using the solo button can easily lead to unexpected mistakes. When a 'solo'd' player leaves early and comes back in your session the next day, you may hear only him, because to you he is still on solo.)

One would wish there'd be a solution to ban a spoilsport like this. Maybe not for ever, but say for a month. If he promises to behave let him in again and if not, give him two months.

[iknowkungfutoo]

The server owner.

[iknowkungfutoo]

Keep it simple....

[iknowkungfutoo]

How is writing the IP address and username to a log file difficult to maintain? It's a few lines of code.

[chrisrimple]

You've described your own solution:
I have done it with IP blocking, a simple change of code to log user name and IP address to the log or separate file. A password-protected PHP script to list the last 1,000 users with a tick box and a "ban button". The script updates the iptables automatically when the ban button is pressed.

Which works great if the server owner (you) are present to see the offending behavior, so you know the user name you want to ban. But what if the server owner isn't present, which is likely to be frequent? Does the server owner just accept some random user's claim that username "Joe" should be banned?

Also, if it's a simple solution to code, and you've already done it, why not submit your code to the project and see if it's accepted for a future release?

[iknowkungfutoo]

It's up to the server administrator to ultimately decide.

Why don't I commit my code? Because of the massive reluctance to agree on a solution, here and in previous threads on the subject. I'd happily do so otherwise. How about we start working towards a solution rather than looking for ways not to do it? Also, my solution is tailored for Linux systems. If you want the full automatic iptables updating solution, it wouldn't be suited for MAC or PC based servers. Someone else would need to write that. But if people are willing to agree to logging the IP address alongside the username... that should work on any platform and at the very least, gives server admins the ability to easily search the log for subject in question.

[marceldehaan80]

Would be nice if there was an option to vote for a ban. So only when everybody on the server agrees. Not everybody is a server owner and it's nice to play with and meet new people on public servers. I now you can solo, but this person we are talking about doesn't leave and write the rest of the evening negative things in the chat. It's frustrating when you have a nice jam other people are leaving because of this person. Op za 26 apr 2025, 20:57 schreef Chris Rimple ***@***.***>:

…

I understand the concern, but if you're not the server owner, why do you feel that you (or anyone who is not the owner) should have "banning" rights? The server owner has opted to leave it public for a reason - those who want private servers set up their own. As has been pointed out, there are solutions in place (Mute, Solo). Adding a "ban" option that is not controlled by the server owner is very risky - the problem bass player could ban every other bass player as they arrive, and the other musicians would not be aware that those other players have been banned, etc. So banning power needs to be limited to an "approved" person(s), probably only the server owner. And what happens when the problem bassist arrives, but the server owner is not present to ban them? All that said, if some form of banning/blocking were to be implemented, I think it should only be available to the server owner (or perhaps a list of users they specify). Then, as the person paying for the server (public or not), they can decide who they want to allow to use it. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3485 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BPXRLKIVQOI67SYTYM7RELD23PJI7AVCNFSM6AAAAAB2ECYVS2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTEOJVGY3DGNI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>

[chrisrimple]

Building a system to vote for a ban, and a system to ban a user, all sounds like a lot of effort to solve a problem of one bad user.

But you raise an interesting point, that a Muted user (or one that is not Soloed) can still write in the Chat, and those posts are visible to all. Perhaps only posts by Unmuted or Soloed users should be shown. Doesn't help for the user that has just joined the server, but they also don't see any chat history, and there's an opportunity to tell them to Mute the offending user.

[iknowkungfutoo]

There's nothing to stop the bad actor from coming back with a different username. Using mute just doesn't cut it.

[dcorson-ticino-com]

There's nothing to stop the bad actor from coming back with a different username. Using mute just doesn't cut it.

As this appears to be very important for you I would suggest that you submit code that will work for all the user base of Jamulus so that the powers at be can make a decision. This is open source free software that advances only when people see a problem and solve it themselves. You can not expect people who do not see the problem as very important to spend their time to solve it.

I can imagine that a solution that would make banning users by the server owner simpler could be regarded with favor if it would work for all the user base/operating systems supported by Jamulus. And that even if the powers at be do not see the necessity of finding a solution themselves.

[iknowkungfutoo]

I said that I would be willing to share the simplest solution of logging IP address and username to a log file, which is cross-platform compatible, should a consensus be agreed for that to be the way forward.

The rest of my solution is not part of the Jamulus code base. It's a PHP script that reads the log file and presents the data to the server administrator via a password-protected webpage and as such, is beyond the scope of the Jamulus code/repository. It would be for individuals to write their own automatic solution, be it on MAC, PC or Linux. They would at least be able to browse the log file, search by username, copy the IP address and update their firewall, iptables, or whatever it is on a MAC system manually.

If people want it, say so and I will push my changes to the repo.