Bans not working correctly (Solved)


Quite self explanatory really - this bug happens in 3.11.0 for sure, but I’m pretty sure that something has been broken for a while.

We have a ban rule


which is to act as a regular expression of course, and is permanently banned with a reason that we don’t want people to come online with the default nickname.

However, this just happened:

<18:09:31> “TeamSpeakUser” connected to channel “[cspacer]Poczekalnia”

This regular expression used to work correctly, in fact, when I try it, I do get an error with the ban reason -

<18:16:41> Trying to resolve hostname flamespeak
<18:16:41> Trying to connect to server on flamespeak
<18:16:42> You are banned permanently. Reason: "Ustaw inny nick niż TeamSpeakUser i spróbuj ponownie!"

Which leads me to believe that something is broken.

The same thing happens with IP addresses - recently we’ve had a spike in antisocial behaviour and despite whole subnets of IP’s being “banned” in the ban list, these people still are able to come online.

Is this under investigation, has something been changed? The ban system is insufficient as it is, but when it can’t even work in the form it should, its even more annoying to work with.



Name bans are easy to get around while looking like you are using a banned name. There are several non-spacing characters that can be inserted anywhere in the nick name that would allow it report a negative match to the regex test and be allowed on the server while looking exactly like the banned nick name to any user. You can ban all of those any of those non-space from any with something like .*[­­].* (note there are two characters between those brackets and there are others)

I’ve never seen the IP ban fail if properly entered, but you didn’t provide any info on how you entered it or the settings for that ban. I’ve seen plenty of users use VPNs to get around IP bans though.

Is this NPL legal?!?!

Looks like you are selling “premium channels and such” with a 512 slot NPL license.
Server links to facebook, face book links to the site shown in chrome.

The person in the example had nothing in their nickname apart from TeamSpeakUser.

I cant disclose ip addresses so thats a difficult one. But even when whole subnets were banned, ip addresses in them were able to get in. This has nothing to do with someone using a VPN. A ban is a ban and if the ip addresses match it should be enforced.

If your translator was any good / you actually read the content of our site you would know, that all of our channels are free and no one is charged for anything. No where on the site, server or dashboard is money even mentioned.

If that isn’t enough, feel free to report us. Theres no explaining left to do on that matter.

Looks like they’re partnered, which they’re (TeamSpeak) using NPL licenses until the new license is ready.

1 Like

Could you use and example of how you entered the IP ban, just using something like 192.168.84. since we know that is not a route-able address.

As for the NPL question...

I’ve never see a server “offer” different tiers of channels without a fee for each level up, never. That server would the first ever for me if those are all free options. And it looks like any request for just are through a “contact us” so that you don’t publicly disclose pricing and such. I could have believed they were free if you put info like time since first connection or time connected to the server to gain levels to better channels, but it states “contact us to request”. If all are free why even break it down, everyone gets free “elite” with directions to create the channel on the server as such. Again, that is how I interpret what can can get from the translator. If I’m wrong, sorry. If I’m right, please consider a paid license for 512 slots.

Correct dear sir.

Lets not get too sidetracked though, I want to actually get this sorted if possible :sweat_smile:

@Screech the contact is there if people need clarification. The channels are tiered because our community has grown over the years-those who are bigger groups need more space so are offered more channels. Is that rocket science?

To re iterate - we are on a sponsorship licence but as the old system was still running when we applie our license shows as NPL. God bless.

1 Like

I’ve tested this regex on 3.12.0-beta.2 and I can’t replicate this. Unless they’re using special characters I can’t imagine a way they’re getting around this regex.

1 Like

Thats what I imagined but the client displayed the nickname without any characters as indicated by the line from the client log.

I mean even Steam and other platforms struggle with these annoying characters but in that case, what is the point of the ban system :sweat_smile:

Do you even have the ban in place currently?

Yes we do, what makes you ask?

Yeah it doesn’t look like it’s working at all, can you edit it in the ban list and show a screenshot of it?

Annoyingly, the client won’t let me stretch the window any further, but here it is:


The whole rule, for clarities sake is -

in a hastebin because the forum breaks some formatting which in a case like this is very important.

p.s. I didn’t edit it and save, I just opened it to view.

Since you’ve edited the ban it’s now working correctly so I’m not sure why it wasn’t previously.

OK, ready to move on to the IP ban issue?

Not really, because the nickname issue still exists.

Either way, not sure how plain I can make this IP banning story, but its all rather simple.

We had people being anti-social, so they got banned - the nicknames and IP addresses, because they did not connect with a myteamspeak ID (this was checked by us manually).

An example IP address could be - so the ban rule, to ban was as follows:


This was the first thing we implemented. When this wasn’t enough to stop them, they were banned further with rules such as


STAR stand for the star character, cause again forum thinks im trying to style.
(which, I know, isn’t great but we wanted to get rid of them for the time being until they realised that we wouldn’t back down). Such reg expressions still allowed them in with IP addresses 1.2… and (obviously) mistakenly banned some of our legitimate users so we couldn’t keep these bans in place for very long - not that they were much use, when they were’t stopping the real cause of the anti-social behaviour anyway.

try using something like 1\.2\.3\..*


With regex several characters are special (.*|()[] and so on) and to be literally part of the comparison you have to break those characters with the \

Not much use now when I can’t see it in action :frowning:

Tried that too, but found threads on old forum which used reg exp so assumed that was more supported.

regex allows for banning multiple subnets with a single ban entry using something like [(1\.2\.3)|(1\.3\.2)]\..* (just a sample syntax may be wrong as those bans were long ago removed from my servers)

@Pantoflarz Also if you wrap your expressions in inline code delimiters (`) you will be able to show them as you intended without have to write out “star”.

1 Like

Also, that ban appears to be working for me. If you are testing it make sure you are not using an identity that has ignore ban permissions, or a member of a group with that permission, on the server.

Check for b_client_ignore_bans...

Right click on your self -> permissions -> Permissions overview -> enter b_client_ignore_bans in the Filter box.