privacy (Re: RFC: OP cheating)

[Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 17, Ville wrote:
| > | 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?
| 
| I don't know what you mean with "global" - if you mean network wide, then
| you got me all wrong. A notice to &local would help spot the clones/spam.

I meant global to the server, it was ambiguous, sorry.

| Dozens of people already use patches that echo to a local operator channel
| all the nickchanges, quits, connects, and so forth.

Yes, and I consider this to be a privacy issue, unless you
state this in your motd.  This is why these kind of big
brother patches were never included.