[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC: OP cheating

To: ircd-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC: OP cheating
From: Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:47:20 -0500
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980317091051.31068G-100000@populo.vip.fi>; from Ville on Tue, Mar 17, 1998 at 09:21:02AM +0200
Mail-followup-to: ircd-users@stealth.net
References: <27509.890107359@eterna.com.au> <Pine.LNX.3.95.980317091051.31068G-100000@populo.vip.fi>

On Mar 17, Ville wrote:
| But I think it'd be a great idea if on the third/fourth/fifth nick change
| within a minute (or some such period) the client was given a notice and
| set +r(estricted).

in this particular case, nick changes aren't numerous, nor
fast.

| The "User x has been set +r(estricted)" notice could appear on &local or
| &notices - I don't believe it would break any privacy.

why would a global notice be necessary anyways?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: OP cheating
  - From: Ville

References:
- Re: RFC: OP cheating
  - From: matthew green
- Re: RFC: OP cheating
  - From: Ville

Prev by Date: Re: RFC: OP cheating
Next by Date: Re: RFC: OP cheating
Previous by thread: Re: RFC: OP cheating
Next by thread: Re: RFC: OP cheating
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread