Re: !-Channels and the +a Flag

[Vesa Ruokonen <ruokonen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 09:03:05PM +0100, Michael Neumayer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:42:08PM +0100, Francis MUSEUX wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:54:10PM +0100, Piotr Kucharski wrote:
> > > It is expected behaviour.
> > Why is !chan behaviour different from &chan one ???
> Because the -a problem wasn't really thought about at the time it was
> implemented for &-channels I guess.

Wrong guess. The goal with &channels was to provide anonymity
to messages, but not to channel membership. There are bigger
problems in trying to make membership anonymous.
 
> > Which one is broken ?
> It's intended behaviour. We decided not to change "broken" &-behaviour.

I think it was wrong decision with !channels, and it should be
corrected. There is obvious large scale trap with the +a mode.
Smaller traps like that exist (who *, +r), but they concern
only one user and can be accepted imho.
Please allow -a on !channels.
-- 
<A HREF="http://www.funet.fi/~ruokonen/";> Vesa.Ruokonen@xxxxxxxxxxxx </A>