Re: nick.patch

[Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 29, wnelson wrote:
| What do you people think about this little patch (patchette ?) which
| modifies the current nick-change code slightly? Right now the only
| way to slow down a nasty channel nickflood by a botnet would be try and
| set mode +b *!*@* on the channel. Of course - if you have as much as one
| other ban in the banlist - this will not work. And even if you do get
| the
| ban in place, the results could be quite interesting if one of your
| fellow channel ops is running a 'kick-anyone-matching-a-ban' script...
| ;-)
| 
| What this code does is therefore to extend the current behaviour (15
| second lag on a nickchange if you're banned on a channel) to apply if
| you cannot send to any channel you're a member of, for whatever reason.
| The logic behind this is to allow nickfloods to be controlled by channel
| owners setting +m.

i thought this was already how things worked, and looking
back to the mails written around the time Bquiet was proposed
by Eumel and discussed, it seems it was indeed the intent.

i don't have the diff Eumel originally submitted, so i cannot
check if i changed it, or if it's how he did it.

anyhow, moving to ircd-users for more comments.

can anyone remind of any reason why we shouldn't allow such
change?