From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51342: 29.0.50; remove non-CAPs from rcirc capability list Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: <87fsryehfx.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87o87gzjpd.fsf@neverwas.me> <878ryiwxf4.fsf@posteo.net> <87r1caseo5.fsf@neverwas.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38292"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 51342@debbugs.gnu.org To: "J.P." Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 14 19:12:33 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJzV-0009p5-87 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:12:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60198 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJzU-0005QS-6i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:12:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53986) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJz2-0005Os-JC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:12:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40061) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJz0-00069m-VP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:12:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJz0-0001CC-HL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:12:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:12:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 51342 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.16369134714532 (code B ref -1); Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:12:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Nov 2021 18:11:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51607 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJyB-0001B2-B7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:11:11 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:60842) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJy9-0001Au-84 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:11:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53922) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJy9-0004j7-0H for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:11:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:54019) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmJy3-00065W-Mo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:11:07 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34EC924010A for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:11:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1636913460; bh=V//wy29k4UC8IcZJmi+4MIMoDFyc/RYlWws/hcBX02M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=HtEPopJ3ScMmRVxHgUVrALYdn95haagIkDT5LKhA0LWz/Hb+BXLhvSDPcOaI6LRS5 lYA/1ZPktoaAxeoziP20BP6UQ8lOCibhSQbHEomPNq3yHeCjvl9hHiNjRhz3XwSv8J hpfBDyGiUw9SumH4VBrarpFeKoh/8MFn0tTN4U/u052X4PnSGEF/t09cVsegsg3173 UrjCwtuDpNh86MExqHxi19lfRZdWWN0E0cO4T2qESl7KWBHjLejq0nyQzBWx+bSDRy oUi6EdPSbDqXVd73YryAMmaSiBDhwY6YrvCJoFSQj9wIhsq9/6Y1Ok5L2mTvElKwSM QxRb1/cZ8J2Hg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4HsgNz1HBlz9rxF; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:10:59 +0100 (CET) Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; prefer-encrypt=nopreference; keydata= mDMEYHHqUhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAp3GdmYJ6tm5McweY6dEvIYIiry+Oz9rU4MH6NHWK0Ee0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiQBBMWCAA4FiEEDM2H44ZoPt9Ms0eHtVrAHPRh1FwFAmBx6lICGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJ CAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQtVrAHPRh1FyTkgEAjlbGPxFchvMbxzAES3r8QLuZgCxeAXunM9gh io0ePtUBALVhh9G6wIoZhl0gUCbQpoN/UJHI08Gm1qDob5zDxnIHuDgEYHHqUhIKKwYBBAGXVQEF AQEHQNcRB+MUimTMqoxxMMUERpOR+Q4b1KgncDZkhrO2ql1tAwEIB4h4BBgWCAAgFiEEDM2H44Zo Pt9Ms0eHtVrAHPRh1FwFAmBx6lICGwwACgkQtVrAHPRh1Fw1JwD/Qo7kvtib8jy7puyWrSv0MeTS g8qIxgoRWJE/KKdkCLEA/jb9b9/g8nnX+UcwHf/4VfKsjExlnND3FrBviXUW6NcB In-Reply-To: <87r1caseo5.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Sun, 24 Oct 2021 07:03:38 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:219992 Archived-At: (Sorry that it took me a while to respond) "J.P." writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> What confuses me is how standard-replies doesn't have to be requested. >> message-ids is clear, because they rely on message-tags and if a that is >> provided, sending message IDs even if they were not requested wouldn't >> pose any issues. The thing is that standard-replies introduces new >> types, that the client must be able to parse. Just sending them to any >> non IRCv3-capable client would presumable confuse it. From reading the >> spec, I don't immediately see that it says the capability should be >> requested. Could you explain this? > > Standard replies are quite mysterious. From what I can gather: > > - Future extensions are to favor this form of reply whenever possible. > - These *aren't* for recasting existing replies. > > So there's no need to explicitly request them because support is implied > when asking for an extension that uses them, much like with message IDs. I understand the issue, but am still hesitant. If this is vague, then it seems better to err on the side of safety and request a message even if the request constitutes a noop. Or are there any real downsides to being more explicit? -- Philip Kaludercic