Re: Extensions to the protocol.

[Michal Svoboda <pht@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:41:12PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Wouldn't a PRIVMSG do just that?  The server doesn't care what's
> inside the message.
> Only servers can send numerics.

The ideas were concerned about server to server communication only.
A privmsg from a server most likely results in connection drop; so do
unknown commands and numerics (afair).

> Unknown commands are supposed to give an error reply back.
> Allowing them to pass might result in errors, for instance if
> changes the state of an "object".  Not all server would know
> about it but should, and things like that.

By passing the information we archieve less desynchronised state than
by just ignoring it. I.e. by passing unknown channel mode +e we won't
create "islands" within the same network which can contain different
+e channel modes.


pht