Quoting Alexander Maassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:13:06AM +1300, Andrew Miller wrote: > > > > Attached is the code to kill a ghost logged in to your account, when you > log in > > to mod.cservice. It is designed to get around a problem caused by forcing > > maxlogins to be one. It must be explicitly enabled by the end-user with > > /msg xnick set ghostkill on > > before it will operate. It cannot be set when more than one user is logged > into > > the account. > > > > According to Isomer, this mode of operation was approved by cservice, but > I > > haven't seen the specific wording of what was approved. > > > > Yours, > > Andrew > > most of the ghostkill code has already done by me and is available for a > long time on the sf.net gnuworld patches list. You just did the addition > to be able to turn it on/off. I just looked at your code(I assume that it is the one under the sf login key2peace), and it seems that you did this differently, by creating a new command called GHOST. The way I did it was, if the user has enabled the ghostkill flag, if they log in again, they get killed. Which of these were actually approved? What was the original wording given to cservice?
Also, does anyone have any preference for server kills or kills by the nick? My code uses server kills, while OUTsider used client kills. It should be easy to change either of them across to use the other type. Also, is this going to be committed, because I see that it isn't in current cvs(I checked the cvs tree before I wrote my patch). I wrote a security critical patch a while ago, and I gave it to a few people and I think sent it to bugs@ (not sure exactly, it was a while ago). It has been about 8 months since I first wrote a patch, and it looks like your patches are having the same problems with no one committing it. So what is the correct proceedure to submitting patches which will be committed to gnuworld? > > Kind regards, > Alexander Maassen > a.k.a. OUTsider >
