At 04:05 11/12/01 +0100, nighty wrote:
>Hi,
>
>donc Cc: to people (like me) that answer to questions on the list... if
>they do so, they are subscribed ;P
Its what you get when you use reply-all, if youre a lazy poster. :P
> >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
Fortunate :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.
I tried to set up an example and I observed somethign else entirely:
[16:29] -> *x* ban #zonefive *!~blah@*.aol.com
[16:29] -X- Added ban *!~blah@*.aol.com to #zonefive at level 75
Ok, so I have 1 ban set:
[16:29] -> *X* lbanlist #zonefive *
[16:29] -X- *** Ban List for channel #zonefive ***
[16:29] -X- #zonefive *!~blah@*.aol.com Level: 75
[16:29] -X- ADDED BY: BlakJak (No Reason)
[16:29] -X- SINCE: Tue Dec 11 04:29:36 2001
[16:29] -X- EXP: 0 days, 02:59:57
[16:29] -X- *** END ***
So then I put a ban which masks the first one:
[16:29] -> *x* ban #zonefive *!~*@*.com
[16:29] -X- Added ban *!~*@*.com to #zonefive at level 75
Then I check the banlist.
[16:29] -> *X* lbanlist #zonefive *
[16:29] -X- *** Ban List for channel #zonefive ***
[16:29] -X- #zonefive *!~*@*.com Level: 75
[16:29] -X- ADDED BY: BlakJak (No Reason)
[16:29] -X- SINCE: Tue Dec 11 04:29:44 2001
[16:29] -X- EXP: 0 days, 02:59:57
[16:29] -X- *** END ***
There should be two bans - nowhere is it indicated that the first ban was
removed. The second ban masks the first one, yes, so therefore the earlier
one would be redundant, but what if they had different expiries?
Both should be able to co exist, and they should be able to be removed
individually. Old X let us do this. :P
And Kev, to answer your query - this is on production Undernet, with X - I
assume pl16/pl17 generation servers... Hidden would know which server he uses.
My tests were on Mclean*, u2.10.10.pl15. McLean.VA.us.undernet.org
B50eEFfIKlMopsStUW
Mark.
*swats Nighty on the head on his way out*
