[IRCServices] IrcServices enforcing +R

[ongeboren]

Imho, "modes lock" and "modes enforcement" are 2 different things. If
they are separated, channel owners could decide not to enforce the
modes, allowing for instance cmode +b be used to silence a user (as
some irc servers don't allow messages from banned users) but still
keep the banned user in the channel. Analogously, the same goes for
cmode +r (identified to services only). Further, if configured by the
services admin, services could act even more aggressively by kicking
all users matching a ban not placed via the ban list in services but
via /mode #chan +b mask, provided the channel has "modes enforcement
on". The last extra isn't probably desirable for big production
networks.

Feel free to disagree with me, but propose something better instead,
as my idea should be trivial to implement and is an acceptable
compromise.

On 3/28/07, Andrew Church <achurch at achurch.org> wrote:
> >The problem was, when services split, some users get unidentified, and chan=
> >serv joins and does a kick banning spree, and yes, I am using the lastest=
> >=20
> >version of services.
>
>      If ChanServ "joins", you're not using IRC Services.  In any case,
> Services keeps track of users' identification status across netsplits and
> restarts (unless you have NoSplitRecovery set in your ircservices.conf),
> so the only users that would be affected by this are those that first
> connected to the network while Services was split.  If this bothers you,
> then again, the answer is not to use MLOCK +R (you can, of course, still
> use +R normally).
>
>   --Andrew Church
>     achurch at achurch.org
>     http://achurch.org/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe or change your subscription options, visit:
> http://lists.ircservices.za.net/mailman/listinfo/ircservices
>


-- 
Evlogi Petrov - ongeboren at UniBG