0002990: Q:Line Holds and "Erroneous Nickname"

(0013424)
WolfSage (reporter)
2007-04-15 20:40

I disagree. If a user doesn't know what a word means, they should look it up or ask someone. This IS the Internet. Information is readily available, and easy to access.

(0013426)
tabrisnet (reporter)
2007-04-15 21:01

But wtf does "Erroneous" have to do with it being services enforced?

(0013502)
stskeeps (reporter)
2007-04-18 05:05

Isn't Erroneous in RFC1459? I mean, it would cause clients to not touch a nick and realize they can't switch to it, so it serves it's purpose?

Does the message -actually- matter for clients? Anyone want to test?

(0013610)
aquanight (reporter)
2007-04-19 19:22
edited on: 2007-04-19 19:23

A client itself probably won't check the message. I think the point being made is the *humans* behind the client don't get it.

And "Erroneous nickname" is pretty vague. Nearly every other case where we deny something, we tell the user who tried it why (gline: * Closing Link blah (User has been banned from <network> (<blarp>), for example). Perhaps our 432 should start including the qline message?

(edit: er, actually, don't we do that already?)

(edit2: yes we do: /* 432 ERR_ERRONEUSNICKNAME */ ":%s 432 %s %s :Erroneous Nickname: %s" - so is this really an issue?)

(0013611)
tabrisnet (reporter)
2007-04-19 19:25

The problem is that the users just see "Erroneous nickname" and think that their nick is not allowed, rather than merely services-enforced.
As I said, I tried editing the qline reason to something that tells a lot more, but users were still confused.

(0013612)
WolfSage (reporter)
2007-04-19 20:30

* WolfSage :Erroneous Nickname: Being held for registered user

If a user is too lazy to read that whole sentence, that's their problem.

(0013613)
tabrisnet (reporter)
2007-04-19 21:05

Well, back when I had a large population of kids (14 and under) I had a lot of that problem. The channel moved a while ago so it's less of a problem now, but the fact is that assuming or requiring intelligence shifts the burden not onto the stupid user but onto the support staff.

Your attitude on this is making me think I should have just patched the code myself.

(0013616)
stskeeps (reporter)
2007-04-20 10:10

Before we start misunderstanding eachother here.. Would it at all be a problem if we simply made the 432 ":%s 432 %s %s :%s" where the actual reason is the reason that is set in Q:line etc etc? I mean, can anyone come with a widely used script/client that REQUIRES the Erroneous nickname being in it?

I'm not against removing the Erroneous part, atleast.

(0013618)
tabrisnet (reporter)
2007-04-20 10:32

I'm reasonably confident that irssi doesn't care, as it just pays attn to the numeric, and then prints the payload. I poked around the code, and numeric 432 calls
event_received which calls print_event_received which doesn't do any filtering on the content itself.

(0013623)
stskeeps (reporter)
2007-04-21 03:13

Confirmation being that for we switch to the prefix not being Erroneous nickname: but just the actual error itself. I admit this breaks RFC1459 but it really seems a lot better this way.

        432 ERR_ERRONEUSNICKNAME
                        "<nick> :Erroneus nickname"

                - Returned after receiving a NICK message which contains
                  characters which do not fall in the defined set. See
                  section x.x.x for details on valid nicknames.

(0013653)
stskeeps (reporter)
2007-04-24 05:25

Implemented in .2371

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2006-07-05 12:31	tabrisnet	New Issue
2006-07-05 12:32	tabrisnet	Issue Monitored: tabrisnet
2006-07-06 22:57	MACKBOY	Issue Monitored: MACKBOY
2006-07-06 22:58	MACKBOY	Issue End Monitor: MACKBOY
2006-08-04 10:45	White_Magic	Issue Monitored: White_Magic
2007-04-15 20:40	WolfSage	Note Added: 0013424
2007-04-15 21:01	tabrisnet	Note Added: 0013426
2007-04-18 05:05	stskeeps	Note Added: 0013502
2007-04-18 05:05	stskeeps	Status	new => acknowledged
2007-04-18 05:05	stskeeps	Relationship added	child of 0003049
2007-04-19 19:22	aquanight	Note Added: 0013610
2007-04-19 19:22	aquanight	Note Edited: 0013610
2007-04-19 19:23	aquanight	Note Edited: 0013610
2007-04-19 19:25	tabrisnet	Note Added: 0013611
2007-04-19 20:30	WolfSage	Note Added: 0013612
2007-04-19 21:05	tabrisnet	Note Added: 0013613
2007-04-20 10:10	stskeeps	Note Added: 0013616
2007-04-20 10:32	tabrisnet	Note Added: 0013618
2007-04-21 03:13	stskeeps	Note Added: 0013623
2007-04-21 03:13	stskeeps	Status	acknowledged => confirmed
2007-04-24 05:25	stskeeps	Status	confirmed => resolved
2007-04-24 05:25	stskeeps	Fixed in Version	=> 3.3-alpha0
2007-04-24 05:25	stskeeps	Resolution	open => fixed
2007-04-24 05:25	stskeeps	Assigned To	=> stskeeps
2007-04-24 05:25	stskeeps	Note Added: 0013653

Notes
(0013424) WolfSage (reporter) 2007-04-15 20:40	I disagree. If a user doesn't know what a word means, they should look it up or ask someone. This IS the Internet. Information is readily available, and easy to access.

(0013426) tabrisnet (reporter) 2007-04-15 21:01	But wtf does "Erroneous" have to do with it being services enforced?

(0013502) stskeeps (reporter) 2007-04-18 05:05	Isn't Erroneous in RFC1459? I mean, it would cause clients to not touch a nick and realize they can't switch to it, so it serves it's purpose? Does the message -actually- matter for clients? Anyone want to test?

(0013610) aquanight (reporter) 2007-04-19 19:22 edited on: 2007-04-19 19:23	A client itself probably won't check the message. I think the point being made is the humans behind the client don't get it. And "Erroneous nickname" is pretty vague. Nearly every other case where we deny something, we tell the user who tried it why (gline: * Closing Link blah (User has been banned from <network> (<blarp>), for example). Perhaps our 432 should start including the qline message? (edit: er, actually, don't we do that already?) (edit2: yes we do: /* 432 ERR_ERRONEUSNICKNAME */ ":%s 432 %s %s :Erroneous Nickname: %s" - so is this really an issue?)

(0013611) tabrisnet (reporter) 2007-04-19 19:25	The problem is that the users just see "Erroneous nickname" and think that their nick is not allowed, rather than merely services-enforced. As I said, I tried editing the qline reason to something that tells a lot more, but users were still confused.

(0013612) WolfSage (reporter) 2007-04-19 20:30	* WolfSage :Erroneous Nickname: Being held for registered user If a user is too lazy to read that whole sentence, that's their problem.

(0013613) tabrisnet (reporter) 2007-04-19 21:05	Well, back when I had a large population of kids (14 and under) I had a lot of that problem. The channel moved a while ago so it's less of a problem now, but the fact is that assuming or requiring intelligence shifts the burden not onto the stupid user but onto the support staff. Your attitude on this is making me think I should have just patched the code myself.

(0013616) stskeeps (reporter) 2007-04-20 10:10	Before we start misunderstanding eachother here.. Would it at all be a problem if we simply made the 432 ":%s 432 %s %s :%s" where the actual reason is the reason that is set in Q:line etc etc? I mean, can anyone come with a widely used script/client that REQUIRES the Erroneous nickname being in it? I'm not against removing the Erroneous part, atleast.

(0013618) tabrisnet (reporter) 2007-04-20 10:32	I'm reasonably confident that irssi doesn't care, as it just pays attn to the numeric, and then prints the payload. I poked around the code, and numeric 432 calls event_received which calls print_event_received which doesn't do any filtering on the content itself.

(0013623) stskeeps (reporter) 2007-04-21 03:13	Confirmation being that for we switch to the prefix not being Erroneous nickname: but just the actual error itself. I admit this breaks RFC1459 but it really seems a lot better this way. 432 ERR_ERRONEUSNICKNAME "<nick> :Erroneus nickname" - Returned after receiving a NICK message which contains characters which do not fall in the defined set. See section x.x.x for details on valid nicknames.

(0013653) stskeeps (reporter) 2007-04-24 05:25	Implemented in .2371