[IRCServices] Desired behavior of channel suspension?

[&quot]

[snip]
Sorry about my late (and probably useless) reply...

>      One of the features going into 4.5.0 will be channel suspension.
> However, there are a number of potential issues as to how a suspended
> channel should be treated, so I'd like to gather opinions on the
> following points: (my current thoughts are in [brackets])
> 
>      - Should a suspended channel be treated like a forbidden one (no
> one can enter it) or an unregistered one (it can be used, but Services
> won't do anything do it)?  [forbidden]
> 
I'd agree with forbidden here, but maybe a config file option to allow
setting
whether no-one can enter it or whether people can enter it, but Services
just
won't interract with the channel at all (as if it was unregistered).

However, if you don't want Services to interract with a registered channel,
wouldn't it just be a good idea to add an IGNORE command?  Probably not the
best idea, but this would allow you to just stop Services interracting with
channels IF you decide to make SUSPEND disallow people going into the
channel at all.

>      - Should Services allow changes to the channel settings?  I think
> this one is a pretty clear "no", but I'll put it up for debate.  [no]
> 
No, if it's suspended the only action you should be able to take against it
as
a Services Admin would be to DROP the channel or make it unsuspended.

>      - Should Services allow the founder to drop the channel?  The
> current behavior of suspended nicknames is that the owner cannot drop
> them, but this is only because the owner cannot identify for them and
> not because Services specifically prevents dropping; I could see
> suspended channels going either way.  [undecided]
> 
I'd say no, if a channel is suspended, only a Services Admin can DROP or
unsuspend the channel in question.  If you allow DROP to channel founder,
then all they'd have
to do is DROP it, then re-register it.  In which case, you may as well
forbid the channel because they'd DROP it, lose the access/akick lists 'n'
such.  They'd lose that on a FORBID anyhow.

>      - Should Services allow memos to be sent to the channel?  [no]
> Incidentally, 4.4.x allows memos to be sent to suspended nicks; I'm
> planning on disabling that as well unless someone convinces me
> otherwise.
> 
I'd agree here too, you can't send memos to a suspended nick.
Obviously someone did something bad to warrant having their nick or channel
suspended, so why should you give them the right to have memos sent or
received.
If a nick can't get memos, most people would re-register a new nick so they
can or just to bypass the suspension of their old nick.  So they COULD
still get Memos then, unless you've had them AKILL'd in which case IMHO the
suspension of their nick is pointless.

Just my 0.2p's worth of input there.

>   --Andrew Church
>     achurch at achurch.org | New address - please note.
>     http://achurch.org/ | $B%a!<%k%"%I%l%9$,JQ$o$j$^$7$?!#(B
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at snow.shadowfire.org
> with "unsubscribe ircservices" in the body, without the quotes.

---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at snow.shadowfire.org
with "unsubscribe ircservices" in the body, without the quotes.