Local (&channelname) channels #333

Open
ballock opened this Issue Oct 12, 2012 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@ballock
Contributor

ballock commented Oct 12, 2012

Hello,

It seems that InspIRCd does not (yet) support server-private (local) channels. These are channels that are not advertised or known between the linked IRC servers.

Our use case for that is to discuss information that is under non-disclosure agreement privately on a server separate from the rest of the world (on &secretchannels) and link this server to the rest of the world and use public channels throughout all servers (#publicchannels).

The prefix is clearly visible and tells the user that this channel is secure and that one may not be.

Cheers,
Ballock

//edit: clarification of the use case

@attilamolnar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@attilamolnar

attilamolnar Oct 12, 2012

Owner

hello, yeah we should definitely support this, accepted

Owner

attilamolnar commented Oct 12, 2012

hello, yeah we should definitely support this, accepted

@SaberUK

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@SaberUK

SaberUK Oct 12, 2012

Contributor

I think this is a good idea. However, I think that it should default to being disabled as most people won't need it.

Contributor

SaberUK commented Oct 12, 2012

I think this is a good idea. However, I think that it should default to being disabled as most people won't need it.

@WindowsUser

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@WindowsUser

WindowsUser Nov 24, 2013

Contributor

I agree. After all, Charybdis supports it while we don't.

Contributor

WindowsUser commented Nov 24, 2013

I agree. After all, Charybdis supports it while we don't.

@md-5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@md-5

md-5 Jan 11, 2014

Contributor

Mmm, I'd love to see this. Can't have Chary having a feature Insp doesn't :)

Contributor

md-5 commented Jan 11, 2014

Mmm, I'd love to see this. Can't have Chary having a feature Insp doesn't :)

@md-5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@md-5

md-5 Jan 11, 2014

Contributor

Also I see this was marked as major, wouldn't it be a matter of just having spanning tree not propagate events for these channels, and replace # with isChannel checks?

Contributor

md-5 commented Jan 11, 2014

Also I see this was marked as major, wouldn't it be a matter of just having spanning tree not propagate events for these channels, and replace # with isChannel checks?

@Adam-

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Adam-

Adam- Jan 14, 2014

Owner

See #581

Owner

Adam- commented Jan 14, 2014

See #581

@md-5

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@md-5

md-5 Aug 7, 2015

Contributor

Still no local channels :(

Contributor

md-5 commented Aug 7, 2015

Still no local channels :(

@neico

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@neico

neico Aug 7, 2015

I'd also like to see this happening, #581 brings in basic support but is lacking a "local" chantype which would be required before this one can be marked as resolved.

Module events that would need to be intercepted to make it work:

  • OnUserPreJoin (if local channel and user isn't local, prevent join)
  • OnUserPreInvite (if local channel and user target isn't local, prevent invite)
  • OnChannelPreDelete, OnUserPreMessage, OnPreTopicChange etc. need a way to not send messages across the network, not sure how that could be managed

neico commented Aug 7, 2015

I'd also like to see this happening, #581 brings in basic support but is lacking a "local" chantype which would be required before this one can be marked as resolved.

Module events that would need to be intercepted to make it work:

  • OnUserPreJoin (if local channel and user isn't local, prevent join)
  • OnUserPreInvite (if local channel and user target isn't local, prevent invite)
  • OnChannelPreDelete, OnUserPreMessage, OnPreTopicChange etc. need a way to not send messages across the network, not sure how that could be managed
@del6597

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@del6597

del6597 Aug 8, 2015

Contributor

I think the suggestion from @md-5 that SpanningTree shouldn't propogate the local channel events would solve the first and last issues you've suggested @neico. The PreInvite check would need to be addressed to avoid scenarios involving two local channels sharing the same name. It may or may not be as simple as a change in logic when a channels prefix begins with & though.

Contributor

del6597 commented Aug 8, 2015

I think the suggestion from @md-5 that SpanningTree shouldn't propogate the local channel events would solve the first and last issues you've suggested @neico. The PreInvite check would need to be addressed to avoid scenarios involving two local channels sharing the same name. It may or may not be as simple as a change in logic when a channels prefix begins with & though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment