Re: thoughts on new modes (Ie)

[Thomas Kuiper <engerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi LuckySt,

LuckySt wrote:

> 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.

And? Chanops place bans that way,too :-)

> 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".

Thats sortof ok, and helps the idea of +e/+I in my view

> Bans get cleared sometimes. +I/+e lists will be rarely cleared.

When all clients and scripts are upgraded they will fix +e/+I too.

> 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.

If someone removes +i to let someone in (wouldnt happen that often)
some bots or script automations will set the desired +I masks again
I bet. So I dont thinks its a good idea to add the +I removement on -i

Removing all +e's if there is a specific ban removement is sortof ok,
and enabling them only if there is a ban looks fine too.
But remember that you should be able to do:
/mode #mychannel +bee *!*@*.tobit.net *!*@fizban.tobit.net *!*@abyss.tobit.net

Happy mode changing ;-)

Engerim