placket kidney writes: > This puzzles me, and I suppose there is a good reason for it: > Suppose I send "WALLVOICES #test :Hello voices!" > Another client in the channel sees ":<source> NOTICE @#test :+ Hello voices!" > It seems that it should logically be "+#test", although the message > portion is obviously formatted so humans can tell with ease.
The reason for using NOTICE @<channel> is that there used to be modeless global channels. They had names starting with +, and +#test would be a valid name for one. The + or @ before the message text is the only way for other clients to tell WALLOPS from WALLVOICES. > I'm working on an IRC client, and it appears best to discard the > prefix as it isn't useful for much other than saying "hey, it looks > like someone is using WALLCHOPS/WALLVOICES/NOTICE @#CHAN, but I can't > be sure of which" > > I'm also wondering if I can find mention of just the prefix to the > channel name in any RFCs out there (I sort of wonder how NOTICE ever > got the ability to prefix a channel with a mode's symbolic character, > since it seems like a good way to break some unaware irc clients). I doubt they are described in any RFC. Entrope _______________________________________________ Coder-com mailing list Coder-com@undernet.org http://undernet.sbg.org/mailman/listinfo/coder-com
