[IRCServices] Is there a timeline in the future for supporting ircd2.9 or greater

[Sean Kelly]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 09:25:41PM +0900, Andrew Church wrote:
>      For what it's worth, I agree with you 100%, and that's why I still
> have RFC1459 support in Services even though I'm pretty positive there
> are zero people out there using it.  Now all you have to do is convince the
> users of the zillions of other ircds to conform to standards.  Good luck.
> (See also the comments in my draft IRC protocol proposal at
> http://achurch.org/irc3/ .)

One of the biggest problems these days is that everyone and their pet ape
has a redesign of IRC that they want to call IRC3. They think they know
what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and they finally knew
how IRC could be made a good and happy place. They think that this time
it was right, it would work, and no one would have to diverge from the new
IRC3 standard ever again...

As you might realize, this quote was adapted from the first volume of
Douglas Adams' _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_. In this book, the world
explodes before such a solution can be proposed and put into action. The
same will happen with IRC. There are an infinite number of monkeys outside
who all want to talk with you about their new IRC3 proposal.

I'm not here to purposely insult anyone, but I believe that something of
the magnitude of a mass signing party of every IRC network greater than 100
users will need to happen before there is an acceptable IRC3 that isn't
considered an abortion of the name or protocol.

This same argument goes for the new "IRC RFCs" introduced by IRCnet.

-- 
Sean Kelly         | PGP KeyID: 77042C7B
smkelly at zombie.org | http://www.zombie.org