On 1/25/12 4:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> It may make sense to extend 210 to (2) >> and (3). > > That's the path I took based on your feedback (however, I notice that I > didn't add anything about status code 210 to the section on > user-requested nick changes, which is another time when the service > might modify the user's nick).
Actually there is an example of that and some associated text, but I didn't see it on a quick review. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
