Replying to my own post? Oh well, just a couple points... --- On Fri, 12/18/09, PapaSmurf <freedried@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: PapaSmurf <freedried@yahoo.com> Subject: [DALnet-services] RFC Services Access and Bahamut Interaction To: dalnet-services@lists.dal.net Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 9:05 AM
2.2.5 Founders can be akick'd by anyone with an access of ChanServ ACC -1 or higher (5/4/3/2/1/0/-1) as long as they match any SOp or higher's (ACC 5/4/3/2) access list.
I believe it was James Hess , on this mailing list, who stated he was unsure what I meant by section 2.2.5.... Someone is akick'd. The akick'd is on a SOp's (or the founder's) access list. That akick'd user can akick the founder, under current services, if the founder is not concurrently added to the SOp list (as well as being named founder).
4.2.1 ChanServ mkick and channel excepts.
Excepts (channel mode +e) are designed to allow people in who match a large ban set (from abusive users, etc). If a guest is on the except list and an mkick is issued (by the highest ranking op on the channel), guess who ChanServ doesn't kick? Right, the guest. Mass kick does not unset excepts, and allows excepts to remain in the channel throughout the mass kick process.
4.2.2 ChanServ restrict and channel excepts.
When a restricted channel has a violation (a non AOp/SOp/Founder joins), and an except is set, ChanServ will join the channel and unset the excepts before removing the guest.
4.3 Excepts, like all channel modes, are IRCd command features. The bond bahamut and services share is more apparent than what we think we know. This avenue needs to be explored more. Maybe we can get this mailing list kickstarted with said chatter (pertaining to findings resulting from testing any and all interactions).
Kobi: Couldn't it be added to ChanServ's mkick to unset +e entries like ChanServ's restrict does already? PapaSmurf