*** Net junction: Test0.undernet.org Test1.undernet.org
*** Nick collision on KevveK (freebsd.testnet.org 994978070 <- Test1.undernet
.org 995309412 (Different user@host))
*** Completed net.burst from Test1.undernet.org.
*** Test1.undernet.org acknowledged end of net.burst.
!freebsd.testnet.org! Protocol Violation from Test1.undernet.org: Too few
parameters for BURST
I finally understand this. On Test1.undernet.org, KevveK joined a channel
and set no modes. On the Test0.undernet.org side, however, KevveK already
existed. Test0.undernet.org received the NICK for a KevveK and noted a
nick collision. Later, when the BURST for the channel came, it looked
something like: "BF B #test 995069190 BFAAA:o". Test0.undernet.org said,
"There's no BFAAA", but propagated the BURST anyway. We decided to propagate
the empty BURST on the off chance that everyone in the first BURST message
got collided, but the BURST happened to be split across multiple messages--
since the channel modes and timestamp are only sent with the first BURST
message. However, in the case of a channel with no modes, that empty BURST
triggers the protocol violation notices that many have seen and pointed out.
Question is, what should we do about this? My vote is to simply back off on
the required parameter count for m_burst(). Anyone have other opinions?
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
