> We use RPL 302 in hybrid, and have for some time. Perhaps it We seem to want to use a different numeric for /USERIP than for /USERHOST. I can't really say whether this is a good or bad idea *shrug*
> would be better for ircu to do the same for the sake of > client developers? > We use the format: > :sender 302 target :clientnick=3D+user@host awayclientnick=3D-user@host ope= > rclientnick*=3D+user@host > Legend also has it that an ancient document known only as > "rfc-1459" also specified 302 and this format as a userhost > reply :) > >=20 > > Another change is the addition of a new channel mode, +r. This feature > > works with the ACCOUNT feature introduced earlier in the release cycle. > > Basically, if a user who's ACCOUNT has not been set attempts to join a > > channel that is +r, he will be refused with ERR_NEEDREGGEDNICK (477). > > (The error reply is formatted similarly to ERR_INVITEONLYCHAN and simila= > r > > replies.) This can be overridden by /INVITE'ing the user to the channel= > . > > (In fact, until X starts issuing ACCOUNT directives, +r can be considere= > d > > a synonym for +i.) The new channel mode has been added to the 004 reply > > and the feature list. > But can X unset that in the meantime if someone takes over a > channel and sets it? If it cannot, it could potentially mean > channel takeovers which are outside the scope of the channel > manager on X to resolve. X cannot unset ACCOUNT directives, but the +r channel mode is just like any other--anyone that has ops on the channel can set and unset it. It can also be manipulated by /CLEARMODE, /OPMODE, and by ordinary MODE changes by services. -- Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
