Forums Feature Suggestions Mode checking

In regaurd to a post made in the bug reports.

Could you have mIRC check to see if a mode flag is valid before the command is executed? Usually servers return nothing or say Unknown MODE flag if the flag you use isnt correct. But some servers dont do this and if you are in a channel and do like /mode #chan +h nick, mirc will say they had that mode done, even if that mode doesnt exist on that server.

It's a pretty good idea. Just a matter of using CHANMODES=abc, etc, as the reference. And it would solve all the problems highlighted in the other thread.

Except CHANMODES= is not an official standard. That means, not all servers use it. As a result, this will cause mIRC to deem modes that are valid as being invalid.

Quite true but it would fix the problem that you and I have been debating for the last three days. On top of that, half of what mIRC can do is not considered inline with any standard. It's there because enough people want it.

It won't solve anything and this is a foolish and stupid idea. I don't feel like going into it because all thats gonna happen is you'll post another stupid meaningless reply (like the one I'm replying to now) which actually contains no facts and instead just made up information.

Ok. I've had quite enough of the attitude, codemastr. If you don't like or agree with something, that's just marvelous. You do NOT have to denigrate everyone and everything on which you choose to vent your opinions. If you don't like a thread, disregard it completely. If you can't contribute, then don't.

Your own reply to Watchdog:

1. didn't solve anything;
2. was stupid and foolish;
3. was meaninglessly (semantically zero);
4. contained no facts;
5. was purely your opinion.

How can you possibly cut someone else down in such a fashion when you yourself are 100% as guilty, if not more so (due to the added incentive of all that negative attitude you seem to wish to display to all and sundry).

You frequently have cogent arguments for or against the points raised on these forums. Please stick to those and lose the 'tude, dude.

I didn't post "useful" information because I didn't feel like repeating information I've said before here and in other posts, but if you insist.

Should support for EFnet be removed from mIRC? Because thats what this idea suggests! A bunch of EFNet servers (including irc.prison.net) use Comstud (also known as csircd) software. This software does NOT use CHANMODES=, or any 005 tokens for that matter. Now I seem to recall when I talked about a dynamic channel central system, Watchdog quickly told me how mIRC should "never discriminate against networks" correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this discriminating against EFNet? Now one might say "well you can simply requireat least all the modes defined in RFC1459", however the idea of discrimination still exists. Seeing as how Watchdog argued so strongly against "picking on the little guy" ie, adding features specifically tailored to large networks. Well just a quick check of a few networks I know of revealed a network called HabberNet. This networks supports more than just the standard RFC1459 modes, such as +cR. Should this server be discriminated against simply because it has decided not to follow a non-existent standard? Should clients be forced to type /raw mode #channel +c if they want to prevent colors in their channel? Not to mention all the scripts it will break for users on that network, "Why is mIRC telling me this mode isn't supported? It used to work, and it works when I try it in X-Chat"

But I'll continue to show other problems. CHANMODES= in fact doesn't even solve the problem at all, why? As naki pointed out, this "Global" IRCd he mentions experiences the problem in channel mode +o. According to RFC1459, a server is required to have channel mode +o. Therefore mIRC can't simply say "it's not in CHANMODES, just ignore it" because if it did this it would then be in breach of RFC1459. Therefore the problem isn't solved at all, if someone types /mode #channel +o NICK instead of nick, the problem will be experienced. Furthermore, modes such as +ohv aren't even listed in CHANMODES=, they are in PREFIX=.

Is that enough facts to back up my claim?

Yes, so mIRC would have to check if the server sends CHANMODES in the first place, and then decide whether to use it or not.

Hmm, what about mode list in 004 numeric? I have yet to see a server that doesn't send it. Of course it doesn't provide as much information as CHANMODES, like mode types, parameters etc.

004 could potentially work, however I still don't see why this should be done. Whats next, should mIRC locally check when you /nick and tell if if your nick contains illegal characters? Or if you try to join an invalid channel, or if you ... Parameter checking like that should be, as it always has been, left up to the server. And again, as I said, it still doesn't fix the problem. As naki had pointed out, on the network he experienced the problem on, the problem was in channel mode +o. This mode MUST be present, so therefore even if mIRC does mode checking, the problem still exists.

Well, i don't like this idea either. I just think it's a server job to check modes. What about typos? For exmple, DALnet's bahamut for unknown reason doesn't list mode R in 004. I don't like the idea of using /raw mode everytime i want to set +/- R. .

If you send an invalid mode, server just don't set it, that's all.

Don't misunderstand me, codemastr. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I quite agree that the idea is not feasible, however nice it might sound. You will never get Comstud to code into the twenty-first century...he likes it back in the 80's and has no intention of updating anything. (Just hang for awhile on irc.prison.net and you'll see exactly what I mean.)

My post was not directed at your argument; read it again. It was solely directed at your intentionally inflamatory response (read: attitude) without any additional content/backup. You didn't see me speak up when you told someone else he was less than intelligent when he'd already proven that himself, now did you? You haven't seen me jump in when these flame wars get going IF there is additional content that adds to the thread of the discussion, even if that discussion is getting off-topic (as most of the long ones seem to do).

You know you are abrasive, you do it intentionally. When you descend to the point that you're merely mudslinging, I will call you to task. (You or anyone else I see doing it.) Life is too short to stress over non-life-threatening stuff...and IRC definitely falls into that category. I objected to the stress-inducing tenor of your post; I wasn't disagreeing (this time).

Perhaps I went a bit overboard, I just didn't like the fact that Watchdog told me that my dynamic channel central idea was bad because it discriminated against small networks, and he made it a point to note that mIRC should NEVER do this. Now here he is supporting a feature that will do just that. And, when I pointed out that it would discriminate against severs that don't use CHANMODES=, he just says "half the things mIRC does are non-standard" therefore saying mIRC already does discriminate, therefore it should just continue to do so (which is somewhat along the lines of what my argument for the dynamic channel central was, yet when I said it he basically said it was a stupid argument).

I personally don't feel that modes that can only be set by opers should be listed, neither in 004 or 005 CHANMODES=, since most clients can't use them and the opers who do use them should know which modes they're setting and why.

bahamut's missing R is not missing at all. It appears in both 004 and 005.

004 Hammer kernel.ga.us.dal.net bahamut-1.4(35) oOiwscrkKnfydaAbgheFxXj biklLmMnoprRstvc
005 Hammer NOQUIT WATCH=128 SAFELIST MODES=6 MAXCHANNELS=20 MAXBANS=100 NICKLEN=30 TOPICLEN=307 KICKLEN=307 CHANTYPES=# PREFIX=(ov)@+ NETWORK=DALnet SILENCE=10 CASEMAPPING=ascii CHANMODES=b,k,l,ciLmMnOprRst :are available on this server

The extra function for CHANMODES=* would not adversly effect EFnet users or any users. There's no reason why it simply cannot be an extension of an the existing function which allows mIRC to recognise CHANMODES=* to begin with.

That being that when mIRC sees CHANMODES=* it will recognise ONLY what modes are included there and no other. On servers that do not support CHANMODES=* and I am sure they have their reasons, then mIRC would behave as it does now.

As for your mention of a dynamic channel central, the thought I am trying to get across is that a channel central is "easily scripted" a term you are known to use from time to time whereas support for CHANMODES=*, where it does not exist, is not scriptable at all as far as I know.

Again you're not listening. CHAMODES= does NOT even contain modes like +ohv. To quote the proposed numeric 005 standard (work in progress): "The IRC server should not list modes in CHANMODES which are also present in the PREFIX parameter; however, for completeness, modes described in PREFIX may be treated as type B modes." Then you also suggest that mIRC go against the recommendations stated in this same document: "If the server sends a mode which is missing from both CHANMODES and PREFIX, the client should treat it as a type D mode." It doesn't say "the client should ignore it" it says it should treat it correctly. So not only do you want to strictly enforce 005, you want to enforce a definition of CHANMODES= that isn't even a de facto standard, you just made it up! Additionally, according to mIRC's documentation, "All unknown/unlisted modes are treated as type D" So why should mIRC just change this? Again I resort to, this is a stupid idea.


If you think this is such an easy task, please write it for me. Write a channel central replacement that has the ability to allow the user define which modes are used on which channels, which of those modes support a "list" style attribute (like +beI), etc. I doubt you'll find it is "easy to script." Actually, it's impossible to script. mIRC doesn't allow you to dynamically add controls into a dialog. So this means now you have to use something like MDX to be able to dynamically create dialog controls depending on the user's settings... yeah that certainly sounds like it is very easy to script.

If you think this is such an easy task, please write it for me. Write a channel central replacement that has the ability to allow the user define which modes are used on which channels, which of those modes support a "list" style attribute (like +beI), etc.

I didn't say a dynamic channel central was easy to script. I said a channel central was easy to script, including a listbox for +b. I did my first about three years ago and did a terrible job, even though it did actually work. Later on that year I made a better one which worked alot better. Then I made another which included all the oper modes and a few other handy things. My next one will be dynamic and work from CHANMODES (where available) and where not available it will operate to a default mode (probably CR's modes since CR has the most comprehensive feature set and since it is my 'home' network and since most that use my script also use that network) and I bet my left jatz cracker that I can script it in. See me about this in about six months and I will give you a progress report. Never challenge me to do anything because it will just make me more determined to make sure I am right.

You said in another post that you were in a debating club or whatever, I am also keen on following politics and know how to say my piece convincingly (to most anyway). If it's a duel you are looking for you have chosen the wrong specimen.

Ohhhh BTW: CHANMODES=bouv,k,lOMN,cdejimnpqrstzAJLRU

To quote the proposed numeric 005 standard (work in progress): "The IRC server should not list modes in CHANMODES which are also present in the PREFIX parameter

I guess that some coders do not wish to fall in with someone elses PROPOSED (work in progress) standard.

You've made no valid points in there. You proved that _your_ channel central is easy to script, that doesn't prove _mine_ is.
"mIRC should have a built in mp3 player"
Your response: "A nick completor is easy to script"

You proved a feature I did NOT ask for and NEVER said should be added to mIRC is easy to script, how does that prove anything? Furthermore your idea of CHANMODES= doesn't even make sense. How does CHANMODES= tell you that +c means "no colors", it doesn't. It lists the modes, not what they do, and not what access levels can set them. The only way to know such things is to let the user enter it. How should mIRC know whether mode +W can be set by halfops or not? CHANMODES doesn't say that. The user must tell mIRC. Oh and also I didn't challenge you to do anything, I said "prove it is easy" if you are telling me it will take you 6 months then you already admitted that you were totally wrong when you said it was easy since a script that takes 6 months to do is not going to be easy. If it were easy, your reply should have said "go to http://....../dynchancentral.mrc, I've already finished it" not "talk to me 6 months from now".

And as for showing that some people don't follow the CHANMODES spec, so let me see if I understand this, personA breaks a rule, therefore personB can break the rules too? Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"? You didn't prove you are right for saying mIRC should break the spec, you just proved that the people in question did something wrong, and if you can't see the difference there...

I said "prove it is easy" if you are telling me it will take you 6 months then you already admitted that you were totally wrong when you said it was easy since a script that takes 6 months to do is not going to be easy.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. What it proves is that I know I can do it and that if I chose to do it I will do it in my own sweet time and not in the time required by anyone else. You must believe that other people just sit infront of computers all day. Fact of the matter is, I am in the middle of shifting from one flat to the next, as I can't be bothered hiring a removals company I do it myself, requiring about 30 trips with motor car and trailer. I am also in the middle of sorting out government red tape so I can start another business venture. So as you can see, in the last two or three lines, that there are higher priorities than merely proving you wrong.

Your last post is, yet again, chokkas with misrepresentations. And you call yourself a debater? For the record, I will make the dynamic channel central - where there is a will there is a way. All it requires is positive thinking and some time away from the necessary tasks of life.

Umm ok whatever, I think rather than make Hammer mad again I'll just choose to ignore you. You completely ignored everything I said and simply talked about moving... guess what? I don't care about your life story, and it has no relevance here.
Oh and btw, a good skill of a debater is to speak in a clear and precise manner, and according to my dictionary "chokkas" is not a word, so you fail to do that. Note again how this goes back to you say one thing, then do another. You criticize people who spell things in a US fashion, yet you refuse to stop using Australian words. So rather than waste my time arguing with someone who is a total hypocrite and repeatedly proves it, I'll just ignore you, you can feel free to post whatever suggestions you want without ever hearing from me again.

Nope, a good debater is someone that is able to get the message across to others. How that is done or any reference to quality is merely a matter of personal opinion. I didn't respond to most of your post because it was almost entirely irrelevant itself, namely the sentence about nick completors, it was mentioned no-where else in the thread.

Secondly, I do not criticise people for the way they spell, it is infact you that do that and if I recall correctly you were taken to task about it by Parabrat and asked to consider variations of spelling a "learning experience", something which I totally agree with.

Lastly, the reason why you come across to people as snotty is because you always doubt people. It appears that you deem yourself above everyone else and you seem to come across as self-centred with the "I know it all" attitude. What galls me the most is that you tell me that I cannot do something because it is supposeldy impossible when I know for a fact that I damn well can do it. And I don't need to look down on others in the process.