m_wallops.c confusion

[Rachel Llorenna]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're complaining about operators
using WALLOPS which is translated internally into OPERWALL? The
ircd-hybrid team decided that only servers should be able to send
WALLOPS, so all opers send OPERWALLs instead. Doing /notice
$$server.name or $$*.network.tld is better since it informs everybody
instead of just people that use the mode +w. Few people nowadays use
+w. You could obviously change it yourself, but it's doubtful that the
ircd-hybrid developers will change it in the stock tree.

It probably prevents operators from leaking critical data by
mistakenly doing /wallops instead of /operwall, though one could argue
that that could be fixed by training opers properly.

However, from the changelog:
2002-04-29 12:58  leeh

	* modules/: m_operwall.c, m_wallops.c, core/m_message.c: 
	- notice opers at server returned to hyb6 methods 
	- prefix both a wallops/operwall done by an oper with "OPERWALL -", 
	  differentiating is pointless.  

In conclusion, I'm not sure why it happened the way it did, but admins
now expect it to work that way, so...

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:35:20 -0500, Alan LeVee
<alan.levee at prometheus-designs.net> wrote:
> We are currently working on the next tier patchset for the latest stable
> version of ircd-hybrid sources and several things on my TODO list besides
> translating over +J from Dancer-IRCD and assistanting in modifying +g to
> accept more plausible options is fixing WALLOPS to do what it was meant to
> do. What I'm trying to convey is that I noticed in the code for m_wallops.c
> the static function mo_wallops is written out twice. The first carnation of
> this function makes sense, it sends out WALLOPS notices to users that are +w
> which is what it is meant for since OPERWALL deals with sending notices to
> +z users (IRC Operators) *only*. Now what I was wondering was, would it be
> generally a good idea to just delete the second instance of the mo_wallops
> function in m_wallops.c since from what I can tell by reading the code is
> that it seems to not only override the first instance of the function (which
> I still have no idea why it's written twice) as well as ignoring users that
> are +w from what I can tell. It just seems rather illogical in my point of
> view to have WALLOPS only send to +z users when OPERWALL is designed for
> that and WALLOPS is more pratical in sending out general notices than having
> to do /NOTICE $$node.network.com to give out general notices and it is more
> annoying to users as well.
> 
> Anyone with suggestions or someone that could possibly enlighten me as to
> why m_wallops.c is written like this would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Sincerely Yours:
> --
> 
> Alan (knight-) LeVee
> ChatJunkies IRC Operator and Technician - Secondary United States Node:
> us2.chatjunkies.org
> 
> 


-- 
Regards,

Rachel Llorenna (frequency)