On Jun 5, 2004, at 5:47 AM, Jeekay wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Marcus Lindgren wrote:
Seems to be a small bug in X,
[11:11] -> *x* ban #mIRC [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 100 test
[11:11] -X- I can't find [EMAIL PROTECTED] on channel #mirc
seems X do not like ban masks with the new longer 12 letter nicknames
Shouldn't the list be configured not to distribute failure messages from mailer
daemons?
I agree. Original message follows.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:52:18PM +0100, Chris Crowther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:30 pm, you wrote:
>
> > channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
> > display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
> > it's
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:30:14AM +0200, bas wrote:
> >
> > (plus do you want to give a hacker the ability to /kill you if they
> > happen to get your username and password?)
> >
> they can only do that once.
> after that, they changed the password, or you know your account is hacked and you
> ch
I was noticing today that the NAMES reply (numeric 353) does not match that specified
in RFC1459.
It seems that an additional second-to-last parameter has been added, an "=". If the
channel is mode s it is "@", and if the channel is mode p it is "*".
Why was this change made?
What is the purpose
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:20:43PM -0500, Kev wrote:
>
> > When trying to join channels with ascii character 3 in the name, I now get a
> > 'cahannel does not exist' error. Since when? How come? Will this be fixed?
> > The RFC doesn't seem to say anything about any channel names being illegal.
>
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 02:28:53PM -0500, Alocin wrote:
> About the *.user.undernet.org and the fact that it is nice to protect
> yourself against attacks, it is also a pain for channel ops to find out who
> is doing what and to find out to whom they should complain if they want to
> inform an ISP
When trying to join channels with ascii character 3 in the name, I now get a 'cahannel
does not exist' error. Since when? How come? Will this be fixed?
The RFC doesn't seem to say anything about any channel names being illegal.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:50:03PM -0600, Rodrigo sl wrote:
> i tring the ircu2.10 software but wen i try to run the
> program it tell me "the server can not run as
> superuser"
Maybe someone should change this message to "the server will not run as superuser"...
reading it just this moment it lo
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 10:52:14PM -0500, Kev wrote:
>
>> Little thing: CLEARMODE doesn't remove channelmode +r ...
>
> +r is intentionally left out of the default control string.
how come?
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 02:42:41PM -0400, Kev wrote:
> > > Since it's working with X why not +x mode be a toggle in the X config
> > > for that user? Like X do the /mode +x on the user rather than the user
> > > if it ask X to be +x by default (+x would not be the default)
> > >
> > > This still le
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Tom Rons wrote:
> > I have noticed that I`m now unable to join +channels
> > (modeless channels?) -
> > are they gone
> > for good? I thought they were quite funky:O)
>
> Yes, they're gone for good.. They were hardly used anyway, even on the
> big networks
12 matches
Mail list logo
