DALnet is pleased to announce the following changes to its' user services:
1) Indonesian language pack has been added. Feel free to try it with the "/NickServ LANG ID" command. Special thanks to moonlite for writing it! 2) We removed some confusing notices about NickServ SET ENFORCE that were sent on nickname registrations. 3) Founders can no longer be added to AOP/SOP/AKICK lists. 4) NickServ SET URL command now supports https:// URLs.
Special thanks to Kobi for helping provide coding assistance on these items.
If you have any suggestion or request for a services (NickServ/ChanServ/MemoServ) feature, feel free to suggest it on our services mailing list: dalnet-services@
For SRA, -mjs
Michael Reynolds wrote:
- Founders can no longer be added to AOP/SOP/AKICK lists.
Does this mean a founder change on a RESTRICTed channel results in the ex-founder being immediately kicked and banned, since they cannot be present on sop/aop lists?
No, services don't enforce restrict/akicks on users who already joined the channel (with the exception of netsplit rejoins).
-Kobi.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Kobi Shmueli kobi@dal.net wrote:
Michael Reynolds wrote:
Does this mean a founder change on a RESTRICTed channel results in the ex-founder being immediately kicked and banned, since they cannot be present on sop/aop lists?
No, services don't enforce restrict/akicks on users who already joined the channel (with the exception of netsplit rejoins).
So, since there's no way to perform a transactional sequence of all-or-nothing services commands, there's a chance that a previous temp founder could be erroneously kicked and banned by services, due to a net split.
In between issuing the "SET FOUNDER" command and the "SOP ADD" command, which services never receives due to the netsplit.
Out of curiosity... does this mean if you use "SET FOUNDER" on a channel, you must be removed from all AOP and SOP lists first for SET FOUNDER to succeed... or that ChanServ will automatically remove the new founder from all AOP and SOP lists while performing this operation?
-- -J
James Hess wrote:
So, since there's no way to perform a transactional sequence of all-or-nothing services commands, there's a chance that a previous temp founder could be erroneously kicked and banned by services, due to a net split.
In between issuing the "SET FOUNDER" command and the "SOP ADD" command, which services never receives due to the netsplit.
Sure, but it's a chance we're willing to take.
Out of curiosity... does this mean if you use "SET FOUNDER" on a channel, you must be removed from all AOP and SOP lists first for SET FOUNDER to succeed... or that ChanServ will automatically remove the new founder from all AOP and SOP lists while performing this operation?
No, it's working exactly like before although I guess it might make sense to remove them from any access list during a successful ChanServ SET FOUNDER.
-Kobi.
I'd like to know the thought process on this decision. It makes about as much sense as spitting into the wind. How does the founder willingly handing the channel to another invoke the thought "Ok, let's make sure this founder cannot remain part of the channel in any fashion after handing the channel over to another person"?
DALnet's made some weird but logical decisions in the past (luserslock, fake server list, etc), but this one has me completely baffled.
Michael Reynolds wrote:
I'd like to know the thought process on this decision. It makes about as much sense as spitting into the wind. How does the founder willingly handing the channel to another invoke the thought "Ok, let's make sure this founder cannot remain part of the channel in any fashion after handing the channel over to another person"?
How exactly stoping *current* founders from being added to SOP/AOP/AKICK lists (while they are listed as the channel founder) make "founder cannot remian part of the channel in any fashion after handing the channel over to another person"? what's stopping them from being added to any list after the founder's nick has changed?
-Kobi.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Kobi Shmueli kobi@dal.net wrote:
Michael Reynolds wrote:
I'd like to know the thought process on this decision. It makes about as much sense as spitting into the wind. How does the founder willingly handing the channel to another invoke the thought "Ok, let's make sure this founder cannot remain part of the channel in any fashion after handing the channel over to another person"?
How exactly stoping *current* founders from being added to SOP/AOP/AKICK lists (while they are listed as the channel founder) make "founder cannot remian part of the channel in any fashion after handing the channel over to another person"? what's stopping them from being added to any list after the founder's nick has changed?
-Kobi. _______________________________________________ DALnet-services mailing list DALnet-services@lists.dal.net https://lists.dal.net/mailman/listinfo/dalnet-services
I'm still not entirely certain on the specific need to prevent founders from being on the access lists.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Vin King vin.king@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Kobi Shmueli kobi@dal.net wrote: I'm still not entirely certain on the specific need to prevent founders from being on the access lists.
I think it comes as lagniappe -- hand in hand with not being allowed to AKICK founder nicknames, which was a topic of discussion earlier.
I see how preventing a founder to be added to SOp list can be a substantial inconvenience / usability annoyance in some cases.
The founder can't add themselves to SOp list, and tell the other person to SET FOUNDER. The new founder has to manually do any work required to re-SOp the original founder.
The "problem" would be moot if there were a way provided to list multiple "Managers" or "Founders" of a channel like there ought to be.
-- -J
-
James Hess -
Kobi Shmueli -
Mark Salerno -
Michael Reynolds -
Vin King