View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003644 | unreal | ircd | public | 2008-02-23 22:05 | 2013-01-09 10:50 |
| Reporter | kbc | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Platform | i386 | OS | Linux | OS Version | Debian 3.1 |
| Product Version | 3.2.7 | ||||
| Summary | 0003644: anonymous channels | ||||
| Description | Hi, i'm looking for a feature for Unreal 3.2.7, like the anonymous channels on ircnet. There you can talk to everybody but with nick anonymous. I'm missing this in the unreal feature list ;(. I've you can add these feature, i wish that only irc ops (from local to Net admin) can get op and see everybody in these channel - so they can kick and kill everybody out, or ? nice greats kbc have a good day | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
This sounds a lot like what you could get out of our CHMode +u already, just with the exception its not related to the IRCop statuses at all, simply channel op. Look into +u perhaps? |
|
|
+u is good ;) but what i am looking for is a channel or channel mode where ops can see users without +o/+a/+q but the users can see nobody realy nobody ... when i join a channel as nonop/nonadmin/nonowner i can see the ops/admins and/or owners. But i want 'em invisible ;) And i have to correct that on IRCNET are no channels like Anonymous channels, there are also chanmodes like +a for anonymous, sorry, but these modes works only on some spezial channels ! and &. Something like that i am looking for, you join !channel and there is forced the channel mode +a, that means anonymous, so nobody can see anyone or only ops can see someone ... |
|
|
Syzop posted a list of problems with this in 0000039 (some were answered, but others were not). If you can find a solution to his problems this suggestion would have a much better chance of being implemented. EDIT: Another reason this was never done is due to the time involved in making it. Basically +um does the same thing (if I recall correctly). |
|
|
Not planning to do this, I don't feel there's enough need for it. This is doable in a module by the way. You have to intercept the message and then re-submit it with a different sender. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-02-23 22:05 | kbc | New Issue | |
| 2008-02-24 06:08 | nate | Note Added: 0015164 | |
| 2008-02-24 14:47 | kbc | Note Added: 0015167 | |
| 2008-02-24 18:38 | Stealth | Relationship added | related to 0000039 |
| 2008-02-24 18:39 | Stealth | Note Added: 0015173 | |
| 2008-02-24 18:41 | Stealth | Relationship added | related to 0002408 |
| 2008-02-24 18:43 | Stealth | Note Edited: 0015173 | |
| 2013-01-09 10:50 | syzop | Note Added: 0017335 | |
| 2013-01-09 10:50 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2013-01-09 10:50 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
| 2013-01-09 10:50 | syzop | Resolution | open => no change required |
