- To: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: irc.debian.org
- From: Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:46:17 +0200
- Message-id: <20060501084617.GY9416@country.grep.be>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20060430183447.GN28159@einval.com> <email@example.com> <44551A2C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4455340F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:24:15AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >>> I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
> >>> biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
> >> Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
> >Because it's the default and practically no one changes it. This is a
> Maybe because actually it's not such a big deal? :-)
More likely, because it's hardly documented that this is the default and
because not many people know how to switch it off.
I know *I* had to bitch about it before being told where the
documentation was. And I forgot all about it in the mean time.
> >big problem, because on a network that offers so many support channels,
> >you have a lot of users who are on only to get a question answered (Foo
> >isn't working, what am I doing wrong?). These users have no desire, nor
> >real reason to register a nick. Also, there are lots of times I have
> They do not need to. If you want to receive their privated messages then
> *you* can disable NOIDPRIVMSG and they will not even know about it.
Only if they're lucky enough to try to ask someone who has NOIDPRIVMSG
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4