piotr.nizynski at htn.pl
Tue Nov 15 14:17:50 EST 2005
Aaron Sethman napisał(a):
> Then why bother implementing something when you are going to do it
> half-assed. You'd be better off not shoving out WATCH in 005 and
> letting clients work correctly using ISON than breaking clients who
> expect WATCH to behave like WATCH and not something sort of like WATCH.
It's just like you said we can't return RPL_LOAD2HI in reply for /LIST,
because it's not included in the RFC. Or any other kind of rate
limiting, because the "standard" doesn't let us to do so.
Here, as far as I know, WATCH is not a matter of any absolute standard
like RFC, so we're more than welcome to improve its implementation.
Please point me at least one widely used client "for plain people" which
needs to do multiple 'l' in WATCH. It's not a feature to be used for
good reasons, but rather a toy for kiddies and abusers.
Finally, we just don't like inventing new 'standards' where it's
possible to evolve well known ones. Going your path, we'd have to give
up on /LIST and others and introduce /ELIST, /ELUSERS etc. with some
limiting allowed. This is not the way unless we want to be the only
people up to current IRC 'standards', with others seeing it as a
complete mess changing with every ircd revision.
More information about the hybrid