Re: Anti-collide patch

[Aleksi Suhonen <Aleksi.Suhonen@xxxxxx>]

Quote From: Joern Westermann
Message ID: 3698A92C.C9097B0A@xxxxxxxxxx

} Kaspar Landsberg wrote:

} > the problem with the FNC (forced nick change) solution is that it can easily
} > result in a loop. Suppose a nick collision happens and Guenthi changes to
} > Guent6387. But now, there´s some guy sitting on one of your channels and
} > sees that you get a new nick. All he needs now is a lagged server or a
} > server which is currently reconnecting and he can hook up "on the other
} > side" a client with the same nick, resulting in a nick collision, which
} > makes the whole thing restart from 0 ad infinitum.
} > A better approach (cf. Beeth´s unique-ID proposal) would be to do the FNC to
} > a nick which cannot be taken from normal users like nicks starting with a
} > number.

} Unfortunately all current IRCNet servers reject a nick with a leading
} digit as "errorneous". So it won't be possible to mix new (even unique
} ID) servers with old version. And if you see that after several months
} after the release of 2.10 dozens of servers still stick with 2.9, how
} would anyone force a whole net to upgrade at once?

Hmm ... when I proposed this a few years ago, the forced nick was one
that couldn't be normally changed to, but it was still legal, if I
remember correctly. Unfortunately I don't remember what it was.

--
	Aleksi Suhonen