Hehe. ReBEL is always the test-rabbit :)= I like your idea Mark and with this system without user@hosts and such in X, it would be great.
Copy of this is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I still think an added user should have to approve being finally added >somehow - which would solve this problem. >I nearly wrote essentially what you just did Greg but bit my tongue.. > >Can I re-request that the coder-com consider reccomending that a notice like > >-X- ReBELSucks has attempted to add you to #mydoghasfleas at level 499. If >you approve of this /msg X approve #mydoghasfleas - if you do not, /msg x >deny #mydoghasfleas . > >? > > > >At 22:55 27/09/01 +0100, Greg Sikorski wrote: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 27/09/2001 19:20:24: >> >> > Why not put a code in that sais if a user is suspended, he can not be >>removed. >> > >> > I presume you know that if you have someone on the userlist that is >>close to >> > you, and is willig to "betrade" the other ops, he could /msg x remuser >> > #channel username, and then /msg x adduser #channel username level, and >>his >> > suspension is cancelled. >> > >> > Snatcher >> >>The downside of this is you can essentially "Lock" a person into being >>added in a channel without their consent, just by suspending them - >>they'll be unable to remove themselves from #!!!!!!!!!!hot-turtles. You >>could make it so that self-remuser's still work, however you're left with >>the same problem :) >> >>Greg > >
