ent.
Something like..
[3:01:38pm] MSG -> *X* adduser #channel snatcher 100
[3:03:19pm] [Personal Notice] X: You have been added to #Channel by snatcher, level
100. If you do not want access to this channel, type /msg X remuser
#Channel snatcher.
Just a thought. :)
---
Bjørn Osdal JR (Snatcher) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2002-05-19 14:47:41, skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>Hey there...
>As I've seen, you're a great scripter. I own irctools.com, and I've placed some of
>your scripts on my site.
>Could you please submit any other scripts you have? Or if the ones I have now are
>outdated, please submit updates?
>
>Si
2002-05-17 14:50:20, skrev Cosmin Marcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hello.
>
>Almost everybody knows that if you have sufficient
>access in a channel to set a ban through X and you set
>that ban on *!*@*.* X will kick all users from that
>channel. You need access level >= ban level to remove
>it. The p
2002-05-16 10:46:57, skrev patrasi marius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>wher i can find undernet ircd ?
http://coder-com.undernet.org
> end tell my pls a channel whit ircop or
>administrators but not #zt end #cservice if you can
>tnx
#zT is the only channel that has active he
I believe I asked for that last year, then there weren't anything present.
A good idea is to make your own to-do list. :)
Cheers,
Snatcher
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Mathieu Rene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dato: 2. mai 2002 22:30
Emne: [Coder-Com] L
By doing /msg x verify nick you do not ask for details about a specific username. The
verify command and the info command can in no way be held up against each other.
The Username in the whois is a good idea. It's much more easy to see who's
impersonating, and it's more secure in many ways. Go
I presume I`m not the only one on undernet who thinks it is
annoying that for example: a user join a channel, doesnt say anything for two
hours, and then quit like this, with two whole lines.
Nick has quit IRC: (Bye folx! I will REALLY MISS YA!!
that goes for nick1 nick2 nick3 nick4
Hehe. ReBEL is always the test-rabbit :)=
I like your idea Mark and with this system without user@hosts and such in X,
it would be great.
Copy of this is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I still think an added user should have to approve being finally added
>somehow - which would solve this problem
Why not put a code in that sais if a user is
suspended, he can not be removed.
I presume you
know that if you have someone on the userlist that is close to you, and is
willig to "betrade" the other ops, he could /msg x remuser #channel
username, and then /msg x adduser #channel username lev
