[IRCServices Coding] Mass memos

[M]

Saturn wrote:
> As to the mass memo function, I did request it as a feature, 
> but also implied that I would like a suggestion for solutions 
> to my problem... telling me all the reasons why it is no so, 
> is no help to ANYONE....

Is every response to a post required to address every single one of a
the posted questions or suggestions? That is not the nature of a mailing
list. Members are free to respond to all/some/none of a post. 

Discussion, particularly for new features has to include all aspects
whether or not they agree with you. 

> As to the delay, you misunderstand me (but apparently at 
> least 2 other people got it on the first blush):  I mean have 
> services delay displaying the logonnews for 10 seconds (or 
> maybe delay defined in the config);  The whole point is to 
> allow the user to be fully logged in, join a channel, etc, 
> before the news is displayed to them, so that they will 
> actually NOTICE it.

You are assuming that people will switch back to their status window
after having joined channels and started chatting in them. This IME does
not happen at the moment so why would a delay make it happen. 

> The global message works just fine, yes, however, if you stop 
> to think about it, it does NOT notify every user, rather only 
> those that happen to be online RIGHT NOW.  What about the 3/4 
> to 4/5 of my users who just happen to be at work, asleep in 
> another time zone, or simply offline today?  Shall I global 
> message every 30 minutes for 24 hours perhaps?  sheesh

Did I suggest that? No.

If you have outages which take a long time to correct, then I suggest
that is the problem to address. A services upgrade (with the 5.0 series)
can be done within seconds with no impact on online users and no need to
spam every user of the network to warn of it. An /os global in such a
case is merely polite. 

Outages generally only affect online users, so /os global is a useful
way to let them know of an upcoming outage. Pre planning every outage is
not feasible IRL. What if you plan a particular outage, then have to
cancel and replan. Three memos - one for first plan, second to cancel,
third to rebook. Similar for an outage that does not achieve the desired
effect. 

As with logon news, users can choose to read their memos or not. If they
choose not to or to ignore messages from you, you do not achieve the
effect you desire. Logon news is not optional. Memos are.

There are various options available to you with current systems. A
mailing list in conjunction with the web site would be far better and
would be opt in. Any system which a user has to opt out of or in this
case has no option to and must ignore the user (in this case you and any
other mass memo senders) is spam. 

> As for those unregistered users not getting the news:  On my 
> network, they are unregistered, and therefore can go get the 
> news off the website or by asking around.  News is for 
> regulars, and regulars register their nicks. 

A user who does not have a registered nick, is not necessarily someone
who has chosen not to register. It may be a new user (to the network or
to IRC). In this case, the server they just joined (or maybe services)
is about to go to outage and their lack of registration means they are
unaware of it from mass memo so just go elsewhere. 

Personally I do not discriminate against unregistered users.
Registration provides more features but is not a requirement. 

It looks like you are requesting an "on /ns identify news" rather than
logon news. This is somewhat simpler to implement but a different
request. It does not remove the requirement for logon news for all users
whether new users that are not yet registered or registered users on an
auto connect that have not identified. 

> If you want to be 100% equal to all users, then why not 
> simply not run services in the first place?  The whole point 
> is that everyone registers. Those that don't, do so of their 
> own choice, and I think most users know what they're giving up.

Not at all. It is a service provided for the users that they can choose
to use or not use. 

> And for the record, mass memos as I've been forced to do them 
> thus far, have been met with good reviews and do, in fact, 
> solve my problem.  The only hitch is that people with linked 
> nicks end up with multiple copies, and I would appreciate an 
> easier way to a) send a memo to all users, and b) avoid users 
> receiving multiple copies if they have linked nicks.  Is this 
> really so much to ask for?

I have stated my opinions on this in previous posts and this one. 

> Your condescending attitude is certainly not appreciated, and 

LOL. Glass houses. 

> I will be ignoring any future posts you make to this 
> discussion group, but will be eagerly reading any other 
> suggestions anyone else does post.

Should I care? 

Would you care to share publicly how inaccurate the above statement you
made was?

> Thanks to Trevor and Russell for the support on my 
> suggestions -- at least I know the friendly folks in the 
> group can understand what I meant...

Interesting POV. 

M.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003