Emanuel writes:
> About that... if introducing +M... wouldn't it be more ok to make +i &
> +r and +m & +M exclude each other, same as +p & +s ?
That makes sense to me.
Entrope
___
Coder-com mailing list
Coder-com@undernet.org
http://undernet.sbg.org/ma
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 13:53, Donald WHIZZARD Lambert
wrote:
> Fair enough. I did not think of those.
> For join/part floods,
I always set +mir anyway :)
About that... if introducing +M... wouldn't it be more ok to make +i &
+r and +m & +M exclude each other, same as +p & +s ?
>
> Thanks for
Fair enough. I did not think of those.
For join/part floods, I always set +mir anyway :)
Thanks for the clarification.
-- Donnie
Michael Poole wrote:
> Donald WHIZZARD Lambert writes:
>
>> Is there a real reason a user would want a
>> non registered user to not be able to join, but be able to
Donald WHIZZARD Lambert writes:
> Is there a real reason a user would want a
> non registered user to not be able to join, but be able to
> talk ? I can see the reverse, acting as the +m does now.
In addition to what BlakJak mentioned, non-registered users might be
invited to join by channel ope
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Donald WHIZZARD Lambert wrote:
> Is there a real reason a user would want a
> non registered user to not be able to join, but be able to
> talk ? I can see the reverse, acting as the +m does now.
Yes. If you're using temporary application of the mode to prevent a
join/pa
Is there a real reason a user would want a
non registered user to not be able to join, but be able to
talk ? I can see the reverse, acting as the +m does now.
I would think, that keeping the dual function on the +r is a
good thing, and then simply adding the new +M feature is
acceptable. This wo
By the way, this thought was inspired by a review of patches in snircd
that might apply to standard ircu. Other potential candidates for
merge, as found at http://hg.quakenet.org/snircd/:
- c009bb9294f0 (KILLs stay KILLs across the whole network)
- 9f9b724af054+58e4da80f2a3 (reset connectio
