View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0005177 | unreal | ircd | public | 2018-12-28 18:14 | 2020-01-05 09:45 |
| Reporter | PeGaSuS | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Platform | Unix | OS | Ubuntu | OS Version | 18.04 LTS |
| Product Version | 4.2.1 | ||||
| Summary | 0005177: Add support for /saquit and channel /remove commands | ||||
| Description | /SAQUIT This command would forcibly disconnect a user from the network (instead using /kill), with a quit message like: "User $nick has been forcibly disconnected from the network by $oper" /REMOVE This would be a channel command, that would allow channel ops and higher (+oaq) to forcibly remove a user from the channel (instead using /KICK), with a part message like: "Removed by $(qao): Remove message" Both commands could have a predefined /saquit & /remove message. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
I personally agree with /SAQUIT but with /REMOVE some clients (at least 2 so far i know) is using that command for removing files, it would be nice if you choose an other name in order to avoid conflicts with them. AdiIRC + mIRC (both working the same way): /remove [-b] <filename> Deletes the specified file. The -b switch deletes the file and moves it to the recycle bin. - Thanks! |
|
|
I don't see how /SAQUIT is useful when we already have /KILL for that purpose. And /REMOVE, we have /KICK which is used for precisely that: to forcefully remove a user from the channel. |
|
|
The only thing about /KICK is that it triggers auto-rejoin features in IRC clients. the idea of /REMOVE is to make it like if it was the user that issued a /PART command. The idea behind /SAQUIT is to disconnect the user like if it was the user that issued the /QUIT command |
|
|
Hm ok. I don't want to have either of those in the core. I will explain why because I don't reject feature requests entirely that often: We have KILL to forcefully remove a user from the network, I don't like spoofing quits via SAQUIT. There should be no reason to hide your identity or the fact that you are forcefully removing a user from th enetwork. And as for REMOVE, I think it is silly to work around client behavior that way. Then you just start a battle with clients and can wait for the day that clients will automatically rejoin on unexpected part. In such a case it would be better to use +b ~t:1: (a 1 minute ban) or use some other general measure that affects all KICKs, such as Gottem's m_kickjoindelay (which doesn't seem ported to U5?) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-28 18:14 | PeGaSuS | New Issue | |
| 2019-05-10 16:48 | westor | Note Added: 0020653 | |
| 2020-01-02 18:06 | syzop | Note Added: 0021198 | |
| 2020-01-02 18:06 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
| 2020-01-02 18:06 | syzop | Status | new => feedback |
| 2020-01-02 18:24 | PeGaSuS | Note Added: 0021201 | |
| 2020-01-05 09:43 | syzop | Status | feedback => closed |
| 2020-01-05 09:43 | syzop | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2020-01-05 09:43 | syzop | Note Added: 0021205 | |
| 2020-01-05 09:44 | syzop | Note Edited: 0021205 | |
| 2020-01-05 09:45 | syzop | Note Edited: 0021205 |
