Re: thoughts on new modes (Ie)

["Genady" <lucky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ville <viha@xxxxxx>
To: Emiliano Valente <e.valente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ircd-users@xxxxxxx <ircd-users@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 25 November, 1998 23:45
Subject: Re: thoughts on new modes (Ie)


>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Emiliano Valente wrote:
>
>> Christophe Kalt wrote:
>
>> > Thoughts?
>
>> I agree.
>
>I disagree strongly. I don't think we want to change anything like this
>after n+1 pre/beta-releases of the 2.10-series already being run.
>
>That not being the main cause for disagreeing, the new klud^H^H^H^Hpatch
>would IMO be too complicated and likely to cause desynchs if not planned
>properly. Maybe it doesn't burn that much CPU, but why burn any at all,
>if we don't need to.

IMO they will be used as a prevention method, like krys said:
"I am chanop, let me set +eI for myself in case I need it later".
Every channel has some chanops, and somehow the chanops usually
are advanced enough to understand the modes.
Imagine they all will want to set +e/+I for themselves.
They would think a similar way you do, "If a takeover happens, the
takeover guys might be not so advanced to understand +e/I list, and I'll be
able
to join the channel".
Bans get cleared sometimes. +I/+e lists will be rarely cleared.
Finally we'll end up with most channels having 20 I's and 20 e's each.
This will also cause an increase of bandwidth usage on connect bursts.



LuckySt