Re: ban bug? (easy to reproduce)

[mc@xxxxxxxxxxx]

krys, 

Did You really finished reading the mail?
( see below the quoted and commented mail )

~~
             Rico Gloeckner / mc, ukeer & dufus @IRC
--------.------------------.-------------------.-------------------.
mailto: |  mc@xxxxxxxxxxx  |   i.say@xxxxxxx   |   Mc-F@xxxxxxx    |
http:// |  www.cmdnet.net  |  blah.blah/i.say  |  sbr.home.ml.org  |
 /join  |     #Knuddel     |     #Linux.de     |    #Chatlords     |
--------~------------------~-------------------~-------------------'

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Christophe Kalt wrote:
> This is not a bug, 2.10 shows you the existing ban that
> prevented the server from adding the ban you wanted to.
> 
> the code was added long ago to prevent redundant bans.
> (it's really annoying, granted :)
> 
> On Dec 14, Tjerk Vonck wrote:
> | 'lo all,
> | 
> | I'm on irc.sci.kun.nl 2.10.1+Cr22e1+FL4f1 aoOirw abeiIklmnoOpqrstv
> | It seems there is some server side error in setting Bans. 
> | 
> | I set a ban
> | 	/mode #channel +b *!*@*.blah.net
> | 
> | after that bans like
> | 	/mode #channel +b *!*@*.net
> | and	/mode #channel +b *!*@*.blah.blah.net
> | 
> | do NOT result in additional bans, instead the server returns 
> | 	#channel *!*@*.blah.net
> | 
> | I could understand about the +b *!*@*.blah.blah.net not resulting in an
> | additional ban mask, but (at least) the +b *!*@*.net should result in an
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | additional ban. I of course use some obscure mIRC beta but the bug (?)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I need to agree to him! Atleast ircd should -b *.blah.net and +b *.net in
this case!

> | reproduces for the ircII users that tried it as well. Is there some
> | intelligence in the server code acting up? Why is it there at all?
> | 
> | Tjerk.
>