Re: anonymous channels bug ?

[Ville <viha@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Christophe Kalt wrote:

> further thoughts about this have brought us to the conclusion
> that we should drop the anonymous channel flag for now.

...Or just add up a temporary fix that may later be changed into
a more working one. I definitely think +a channels should NOT be
dropped. 

Hrm. One can't just drop  off oldie  features  because of recent
trouble implementing fixes for them, IMO. Users  can't even  set
+q or anything, anyway.

<Add more whining here about not taking them off. Too bad  I'm a
bit busy atm and will have to suffice with this tag instead.>


Laters,

- Ville/viha@xxxxxx


---
> On Jul 17, Christophe Kalt wrote:
> | On Jul 16, Matus fantomas Uhlar wrote:
> | | Hello,
> | | i checked anonymous channel behaviour with 2 clients and I see users on
> | | anonymous channel see full nick!user@host of someone who quits +a channel.
> | | Do you think that's ok ?
> | 
> | no. :)
> | 
> | anonymous channels suffer from so many problems that it isn't
> | even funny.
> | i have allowed it for users because i figured it may be
> | useful in some way, but i often regret this as people tend to
> | trust +a a lot more than they should.
> | 
> | a simple workaround is to have the server issue PARTs for the
> | client leaving.  This is far from perfect.
> | 
>