View Issue Details

Jump to NotesJump to History
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0001859unrealircdpublic2004-06-03 13:582004-07-12 13:07
ReporterStealth Assigned Tocodemastr 
PrioritynormalSeveritytweakReproducibilityN/A
Status resolvedResolutionfixed 
Summary0001859: SAPART with reason
DescriptionIt would be nice to be able to specify a reason with SAPART that is displayed as a part reason, and included in the notice to the user. Such as:
*** You were forced to part #channel: reason

and

Parts: Nick (blah@*.host.com) (Forced to part [reason])
TagsNo tags attached.
3rd party modules

Activities

codemastr

2004-06-03 14:09

reporter   ~0006556

As long as the "forced to part" thing is in the reason, I see no problems. That message needs to be there though, or else it just leads to abuse "Bugz has left #chan (I'm a moron!)"

Stealth

2004-06-03 14:49

reporter   ~0006559

OK, ill agree with that, but i think it should still have a part reason (since it currently doesnt) and maybe the specified reason can be noticed with the forced part notice

aquanight

2004-06-03 17:11

reporter   ~0006562

Think this might be possible for SVSPART too? ('course, services could just use KICK, so why is there an SVSPART in the first place, but still...)

w00t

2004-06-03 19:16

reporter   ~0006565

Presumably for the same sort of reasons there is an SVSQUIT.

codemastr

2004-06-03 22:52

reporter   ~0006567

There is no SVSQUIT.

aquanight

2004-06-04 00:11

reporter   ~0006568

Last edited: 2004-06-04 00:11

 Yeah, closest thing that comes to that is SVSKILL, but there's actually a purpose behind that:

:NickServ SVSKILL SomeOne :GHOSTed by SomeOneElse.

But then there's abuse:

-irc.somewhere.net- *** Global - from services.somewhere.net - SRA used OperServ RAW for SVSKILL.
-irc.somewhere.net- *** Notice -- Client exiting: aquanight ([email protected]) [Ban me!]
Closing Link: aquanight[localhost.127.in-addr.arpa] services.somewhere.net (Ban me!)

(So maybe SVSKILL needs something too?)

edited on: 2004-06-04 00:11

codemastr

2004-06-04 00:29

reporter   ~0006569

No, because SVSKILL is a *SERVICES* command. SAPART is not. Services can do whatever they want. This is the reason why most services either disable RAW or discourage its use.

aquanight

2004-06-04 00:33

reporter   ~0006570

>No, because SVSKILL is a *SERVICES* command. SAPART is not. Services can do
>whatever they want. This is the reason why most services either disable RAW
>or discourage its use.

Very true. Though I've seen a network where NickServ uses SVSKILL for normal kills (and they are prefixed with "SVSKilled:" - don't know if this is service-side or ircd-side) .

w00t

2004-06-07 21:56

reporter   ~0006620

mkay, SVSKILL. You got the point :(

codemastr

2004-07-12 13:07

reporter   ~0007008

Added in .100

I also added a reason field for svspart. For sapart it prefixes with "SAPart:" for svspart, no prefix is added.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2004-06-03 13:58 Stealth New Issue
2004-06-03 14:09 codemastr Note Added: 0006556
2004-06-03 14:49 Stealth Note Added: 0006559
2004-06-03 17:11 aquanight Note Added: 0006562
2004-06-03 19:16 w00t Note Added: 0006565
2004-06-03 22:52 codemastr Note Added: 0006567
2004-06-04 00:11 aquanight Note Added: 0006568
2004-06-04 00:11 aquanight Note Edited: 0006568
2004-06-04 00:29 codemastr Note Added: 0006569
2004-06-04 00:33 aquanight Note Added: 0006570
2004-06-07 21:56 w00t Note Added: 0006620
2004-07-05 17:50 codemastr Status new => assigned
2004-07-05 17:50 codemastr Assigned To => codemastr
2004-07-12 13:07 codemastr Status assigned => resolved
2004-07-12 13:07 codemastr Resolution open => fixed
2004-07-12 13:07 codemastr Note Added: 0007008