> Hi all, > > As this is my first mail to this list a quick introduction; I'm one of the > guys coding stuff for QuakeNet, I've worked on some aspects of our current > pl18 patch and I'm involved in producing our next patch (which will be > against 2.10.11). > > One problem that occurs from time to time on QuakeNet is very large channels > which form around specific events, for example CPL events where there are > channels with bots doing commentary on games etc. The problem with these > very large channels is the part/join spam can generate a lot of traffic and > often ends up SendQ'ing users who don't have fast connections. > > A possible solution to this problem would be a "high traffic" channel mode > which inhibits the sending of parts/joins to most clients. This would > work something like this: > > * New channel mode (let's call it +h for the sake of argument) can only be > active in +m channels. Thus only +v and +o users will actually be able to > say anything. > > * Channel ops can see all channel users as normal. All other users can only > see opped users, voiced users and themselves. JOINs and PARTs and NICKs > for -ov clients are only sent to opped users. > > * If a normal user is opped/voiced then a JOIN is broadcast to all clients > before the MODE. If they are then deopped/voiced then a PART is sent > afterwards (or even instead of the MODE). > > * When a user is opped they can either be forced off the channel and back > on, or a new NAMES can be sent (what do clients do if you do that to > them?) or a sequence of JOIN messages can be sent to show them the "new" > users. > > * When a user is deopped, either they can be forced off and on again or a > whole load of PARTs can be sent. > > * Adding or removing the channel mode itself is problematic but will > probably involve a variation of the above techniques. Setting or clearing > the mode will probably have some restrictions based on channel size. > > The problem with the JOIN/PART vs. NAMES thing is that there will often be > literally thousands of nicks involved so NAMES is much more compact, however > forcing PART/JOIN or just broadcasting a new NAMES and expecting the client > to cope is "just a bit" hackish ;). > > So, two questions: > > (a) Has anyone done this before, if so how did you do it and what happened? > > (b) What do you think of the above idea? > > Any thoughts appreciated.
+h is used for halfops on most networks, and probably wouldn't be a good name choice. Maybe something like +H or +T? > Cheers > > splidge Wcc
