On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, peter green wrote:
> doesn't gnuworld itself have a nicklen constant?
Is it really necessary to quote 50 lines of headers to add one line to a
conversation?
Also, I cannot find such a constant anywhere in gnuworld. Besides, making
it a constant would be pretty stupid.
GK
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Jeekay wrote:
> > seems X do not like ban masks with the new longer 12 letter nicknames
Actually on this note, how feasible would it be to add a new (parameter to
SERVER / token) that defines all these things? Like the ISUPPORT part of
the c<->s protocol.
That
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Marcus Lindgren wrote:
> Seems to be a small bug in X,
>
> [11:11] -> *x* ban #mIRC [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 100 test
> [11:11] -X- I can't find [EMAIL PROTECTED] on channel #mirc
>
> seems X do not like ban masks with the new longer 12 letter nicknames
--- orig/mod.cservice/cser
On Tue, 4 May 2004, bas wrote:
> "To do so, it uses numeric 345:
>
> : has been invited by "
>
> shouldnt it have been a more parseable syntax?
I agree.. this smells of the old 'is logged in as' debate..
Make it 345:has been invited by
?
GK
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Diane Bruce wrote:
> Jeekay has been playing with a variant in services. I think the
> numbers I use for timers etc. works very well, but still he has
> found at least one spambot with it. I think his timers/counters will
> produce a lot more false positives tha
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Kevin L Mitchell wrote:
> No, the point is that this form of MODE message would itself desync the
> client.
And as I said, my point is that the `key text' would not need to be sent
to clients presently in the channel, so the MODE message they receive as
far as the +k is conce
Note to whoever owns the list: Set the Reply-To to the list please :)
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Andrew Miller wrote:
> The original mail suggested implementing this as a channel mode. It would need
> to propagate to other servers, and clients(at least chanops) in the channel
> would need to be informed
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Andrew Miller wrote:
> MODE #channel +ko something +something someop
> would desync clients - you can't change server-client protocol and not expect
> problems.
If the text were only sent to clients attempting to join the channel, this
is not a problem as the clients currently
Umm... if the clients dont see the user parting/joining the channel, how
exactly are the on-join spammers going to send them a message.. on join?
GK
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Radium wrote:
> Hello,
> I had an idea that would help channel operators fight spamming
> on their channels. I suggest
I never quite understood this - it USED to be the case that the message
looked like
PART #channel
or
PART #channel :Part message
Now its
PART :#channel
or
PART #channel :Part message
This basically means you end up having to special case this (is there a
colon? Then theres no part message. Is th
He could literally have meant `to unleash Windows users', although I find
that considerably more frightening than it being a typo.
GK
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Diane Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:45:44PM +, Chris Crowther wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
>
Ditto. It is so nice of people to resend them to the list though, to
ensure that I get a good viewing of the spam instead of it just getting
filtered off.
Thanks guys!
GK
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Chris Crowther wrote:
> --[PinePGP]--[begin]--
> --[P
How to emulate a + channel (this assumes no ircops with /opmode :)):
/join #channeliwanttouse
/mode #channeliwanttouse +nt
/mode #channeliwanttouse -o mynick
Huzzah :) You now have the instant convenience of an uncontrollable
channel from your own desk.
GK
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Braden Temme wr
My apologies. That ban was added to deal with a load of idiot flooders and
I forgot to take it back off - it has been removed now.
GK
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Brian A. Cline wrote:
> Ack, is #coder-com completely closed to ALL *!~*@* users now?
>
> --
> Brian A. Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
