On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 02:15:23PM -0400, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
> It's been that way forever, AFAIK. -- Jonathan
No, James is correct, the feature is still there if you do /whois nick nick,
it's just not shown on /whois nick. We've already seen people setting up
bots to try and figure out which server people are on by looking at things
like their /whois. If we let people do this, then we might as well just put
the server name back in whois.
> > Jonathan Disher wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Kev wrote:
> > >
> > > > > @@ -120,7 +124,9 @@
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > #define HEAD_IN_SAND_WHOIS_SERVERNAME
> > > > > +#define HEAD_IN_SAND_WHOIS_IDLETIME
> > > > > #define HEAD_IN_SAND_WHO_SERVERNAME
> > > > > +#define HEAD_IN_SAND_WHO_HOPCOUNT
> > > > >
> > > > > /* CFV-165 - Hiding Nonessential information from non-opers
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > > > ugh...hiding the idle time? *sob*
> > >
> > > OK. Hiding the servername, /map, /stats, and such I can understand.
> But
> > > removing idle time is just being stupid.
> > >
> > > Don't cross the line from "justified but painful feature removal for a
> > > good cause" to "blindly removing everything just because you can".
> > >
> > > -j
> >
> > They aren't removing the ability to find out a user's idle time if I
> > understand it right - What they are doing is removing the ability to
> > ever find a user's idle time by typing:
> >
> > /whois <nick>
> >
> > However:
> >
> > /whois <nick> <nick>
> >
> > will still tell a user's idle time.
> >
> > This is so, no matter *what*, nobody can tell what server someone is on.
> > If it wasn't done, someone could theoretically (and probably will) load
> > bots onto every server, set them to all /whois a user, and then
> > whichever one gets the idle time back, they know they are on the same
> > server the bot is on.
> >
> > That's because currently, a whois will tell you the idle time of someone
> > if they are local to you, but only whois nick nick will tell you the
> > idle time if they are not local.. So just a little deduction and..
> > See? :)
> >
> > You're right though - hopefully too much isn't removed :)
