> > I can't see a constructive difference between showing the channel names
as
> > Prv and hiding them completly. The only way it would make sense is the
way I
> > stated, otherwise +p and +s become analegous and +p is just there for
> > historical reasons.
>
> How about we drop +p as a separate m
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 10:40 Pacific/Auckland, Richard Smith wrote:
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 09:03 Pacific/Auckland, L'archange
Eldianel wrote:
My server is ircu 2.10.11.04
and my X is CS6.0 !
I hate to point out the obvious, and i hope someone on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] really can help you,
>
> My server is ircu 2.10.11.04
> and my X is CS6.0 !
>
It's interesting how much the IRCore services illegitimately circulate.
CS6 does not work with u2.10.11, nor anything else [on Undernet's ircu
branch] above u2.10.07. It uses the "original" specifications of P10,
and therefore cannot use th
> My server works correctly the only problem it is my X ! He join the
server
> during some times and then part in ping timeout not much later without
> having answered anybody. [...]
> My server is ircu 2.10.11.04 and my X is CS6.0 !
This is normal behaviour I believe. You appear to be using IRCor
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 09:03 Pacific/Auckland, L'archange Eldianel
wrote:
My server is ircu 2.10.11.04
and my X is CS6.0 !
I hate to point out the obvious, and i hope someone on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] really can help you, but...
CS6.0 is not the X that Undernet has EVER used, for help with that
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:55 pm, you wrote:
> How about we drop +p as a separate mode and make it do +s for
> compatibility?
Yeah, or just remove it entirely, people would soon stop using it *g*
--
hikari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
My server works correctly the only problem it is my X ! He join the server
during some times and then part in ping timeout not much later without
having answered anybody. Here is the configuration of my X and of my server.
You could resolve the problem for me I shall eternally be grateful to you
fo
> I can't see a constructive difference between showing the channel names as
> Prv and hiding them completly. The only way it would make sense is the way I
> stated, otherwise +p and +s become analegous and +p is just there for
> historical reasons.
How about we drop +p as a separate mode
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:30 pm, you wrote:
> channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
> display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
> it's place.
Which is pretty much what I said. +p *should* be visible on /list, but
should be hidden on a
I'd agree 100% The point I was making was that the historical versions of
ircu (2.9) showed them as "*"... at least 2.9.32 did. I would say that +p
channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
it's place.
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 8:25 pm, you wrote:
> Unfortunately for whatever reason this is _not_ the way the current version
> of ircu works. Both +p and +s are totally hidden from /list (it doesn't
> even show a "*" or "Prv" like some older ircd versions did).
I can't see a constructive di
At 18:23 12-06-2003, Tom Rons wrote:
> My view of it was this:
>
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
Why do I have the odd feeling that it's acually the other way around? :)
AFAIK +p channels are shown, but without their name (+s not sho
This is what I've always thought as well (though I thought the topics were
supposed to show up as well? I suppose that's a minor detail) and is borne
out in the way that I use +p on my own channels. I use it if I am going
somewhere and I don't want people in that channel to /whois me and follo
According to my look at ircu 2.9.32 (the last version of 2.9) it was the
other way around... except that the topics were also hidden for +ps.
if (cptr->user && !(SecretChannel(chptr) && !IsMember(cptr, chptr)))
{
nr--;
sendto_one(cptr, rpl_str(RPL_LIST), me.name, cptr->name,
Ummm... +p channels were _always_ showed in /list as I recall.
"Secret" implies totally secret -- i.e: you can't find out about it unless
you already know the name.
"Private" implies that your existence on the channel is "private" unless
they already know the name... or if they start /join'ing
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:30:14AM +0200, bas wrote:
> >
> > (plus do you want to give a hacker the ability to /kill you if they
> > happen to get your username and password?)
> >
> they can only do that once.
> after that, they changed the password, or you know your account is hacked and you
> ch
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
>
are you sure its not the other way around?
> My view of it was this:
>
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
Why do I have the odd feeling that it's acually the other way around? :)
AFAIK +p channels are shown, but without their name (+s not shown in
list at all, if you're not on
>
> Although afaic we know longer send "Prv" as the channel name for a Private
> (+p) channel...I don't know if anyone ever did tbh. I believe the
intended
> operation is that Private channels will show up on LIST, without their
topic,
> but membership of the channel is not visible through use of
At 09:28 12-06-2003, you wrote:
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 5:43 am, Captain Kirk wrote:
[snip /list +s/+p discussion]
My view of it was this:
Both show up on /list if you are in the channel.
Both show up on /whois'ing someone else if you are in the channel.
+p does not show in /list at all
+s shows
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 5:43 am, Captain Kirk wrote:
> I always thought it was the other way around. If you set +p, the channel
> won't appear in /list but if you whois someone who "is" in the channel it
4.2.6 List Message
"[...] Private channels are listed (without their topics) as chann
21 matches
Mail list logo
