[IRCServices Coding] Services 5.0pre9 released

[Aragon Gouveia]

Would it be easier to hard code NOJOIN at -100 and restrict AUTODEOP to 0 -
-99 ? At the same time restrict the other levels to be greater than -100 ?


| By Andrew Church <achurch at achurch.org>
|                                          [ 2002-08-15 15:05 +0200 ]
>      One of the main problems with allowing both is what you do when e.g.
> AUTODEOP is set positive and SECUREOPS is set, when NOJOIN is set higher
> than AUTODEOP, etc.  Yes, I could write logic to handle all this, but that
> gets complex, and complexity leads to bugs.  Negative access levels aren't
> used for anything else at the moment anyway, so I'd personally prefer that
> you got used to SECUREOPS and RESTRICTED instead.
> 
>   --Andrew Church
>     achurch at achurch.org
>     http://achurch.org/
> 
> >now a few people have appeared saying they use RESTRICTED and SECUREOPS.. 
> >chances are these may cause arguments.. granted, SECUREOPS and RESTICTED are 
> >just mass NOJOIN and NOOP some users would rather have them.. than having to 
> >set every nickname on the network to -1 and -100 on the access list :p
> >
> >i have a feeling there is gonna be a dispute over this.. possibly have the 
> >option to switch NOJOIN and NOOP as well as RESTRICTED and SECUREOPS off and 
> >on in the config file? means everyone who wants them.. can have them, and 
> >also saves arguments :)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe or change your subscription options, visit:
> http://www.ircservices.za.net/mailman/listinfo/ircservices-coding