On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 00:07 -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Good idea? Bad idea? Good idea but bad code? Would other crule > functions be useful? Should I be spending more time on other feature > requests?
Seems like a good idea to me. Haven't spent a lot of time perusing the code, though. I keep thinking other functions would be useful, but I don't actually have any specific ideas :) hmmm...how about a version of "directop" for any connected operator, whether direct or not? How about a test for a local oper in a specific class, i.e., an admin? On the wish list for the future: configuration variables, settable via IRC, so I could "/quote setvar $blah :off" and have all connections controlled by $blah be prohibited by crule. Also for the wish list: a version of crules for clients? Might be redundant with iauth, though... (That makes me wonder...could iauth be adapted to work with server connections in some way? That way, we could write more complex crule rules: "Allow this connection only between 9pm and 10pm on nights with a full moon" ;) -- Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Coder-com mailing list Coder-com@undernet.org http://undernet.sbg.org/mailman/listinfo/coder-com
