Kevin L. Mitchell writes: > 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?
Those make sense, as do variables. > 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" ;) That would be pretty easy; right now, there is some code to avoid using iauth for server connections. Entrope _______________________________________________ Coder-com mailing list Coder-com@undernet.org http://undernet.sbg.org/mailman/listinfo/coder-com
