>On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 16:07, Chip Norkus wrote:
>> Operwalls are delineated only by a prefix in the WALLOPS message (when sent
>> to users). In fact it would be trivial to fake an operwall by simply
>> applying this prefix to a standard wallops message. The client has no way
>> of determining if this is really an operwall or not, a script is better
>> suited to this. It would be better if scripts could simply create their
>> own log levels (beyond just USER1-USER4, levels with their own names etc).
Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
>This isn't quite correct. Oper wallops are differentiated from *local*
>oper wallops by that prefix, and it is done by issuing a /whois or
>/userhost (I'm not sure which EPIC is using these days). The client
>itself adds the prefix, not the server. (Undernet's '*' and '$'
>prefixes are a little more specialized...)
>
>It would be very easy for the client to differentiate an *operator*
>wallops from a *server* wallops: is the origin a user or a server?
What Black wants is to have /on wallop or the WALLOP level to be split
into two levels, one for server senders and one for non-server senders.
This information is easily ascertained by $1 in /on wallop. My position
is that it's really easy to do:
/on wallop "% S *" { ... echo to server-wallop window ... }
/on wallop "% \* *" { ... echo to oper-wallop window ... }
But this is not necessarily a solution accepted by all stakeholders.
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
