Hi, donc Cc: to people (like me) that answer to questions on the list... if they do so, they are subscribed ;P
At 02:27 11/12/2001, you wrote: >I think the point here is that you cant remove the specific ban in X based on mask, >without removing any other ban set in X which masks that ban ... > >On the old X you could, with this version of X you can often easily remove other bans >that you might want to leave behind eg: > >*!~[EMAIL PROTECTED] i am not using AOL heh ;P >would be removed if someone set - and then removed - *!~*@* > >With the old X, you could unban just the *!~*@* listing, eg remove that ban from X, >without the other existing bans being touched. > > >or to put it another way, someone banning and then removing the ban for *!*@* *in X* >would cause ALL bans listed in X (at or below the users access level) to be removed. >Shouldnt be the case. i dont think it is .. i think it only applies to channel bans .. an ircu issue. >At 01:18 11/12/01 +0100, you wrote: >>At 00:26 11/12/2001, you wrote: >>>Hi there, >>> >>>I observed something weird a couple of minutes ago. There's something that doesnt >work correctly with the bans: >>> >>>look what happens if I type this on an empty or full channelm with or without bans >on it: >>>/mode #uhuh +bbbb <mailto:*!~test@test>*!~test@test ><mailto:*!~2test2@2test>*!~2test2@2test <mailto:*!~3test3@3test>*!~3test3@3test *!~*@* >>>[18:12] *** Hidden sets mode: -bbb <mailto:*!~3test3@3test>*!~3test3@3test ><mailto:*!~2test2@2test>*!~2test2@2test <mailto:*!~test@test>*!~test@test >>>[18:12] *** Hidden sets mode: +bbbb <mailto:*!~test@test>*!~test@test ><mailto:*!~2test2@2test>*!~2test2@2test <mailto:*!~3test3@3test>*!~3test3@3test *!~*@* >>>this is not really what its suppose to do/show, it says it added 4 bans, but the >banlist is: >>>#uhuh *!~*@* set by Hidden (Mon Dec 10 18:12:24) >>>#uhuh End of Channel Ban List >>> >>>I just thought I should let the coders know :) >>> >> >>Hello >>you remember that 'trick' to clean a banlist ? >> >>/mode #channel +b-b *!*@* *!*@* ? >> >>i think what you found as a bug here is just a "feature" that if you put a ban on >> >>*!*@1.2.3.*, >>*!*@1.2.4.*, >>*!*@1.2.5.*... >>then put one on *!*@1.2.* .. it will just remove the others already covered by this >new one >>to save space in banlist. >> >>So .. the *!~*@* covered the other 3 bans, so imho .. i dont see a bug anywhere here. >> >>I hope this answered to your question ;) >> >>regards, >> >>> >>>Hidden >>><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>note: no need to cc the answer(s) to me, I'm already on the list and dont wish to >receive 2 same messages :) >> >> ----------------------------------------------- >> nighty - Undernet IRC Operator >> ----------------------------------------------- >> Paris.FR.EU.Undernet.Org >> ----------------------------------------------- >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>PGP key available at http://www.ecp-net.com/pgpkeys.php3?mail=nighty%40undernet.org >>FingerPrint : 40A8 D43E E4EB D04D D7AD A9AC 2392 A17F E57C C83E >> ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- nighty - Undernet IRC Operator ----------------------------------------------- Paris.FR.EU.Undernet.Org ----------------------------------------------- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available at http://www.ecp-net.com/pgpkeys.php3?mail=nighty%40undernet.org FingerPrint : 40A8 D43E E4EB D04D D7AD A9AC 2392 A17F E57C C83E -----------------------------------------------
