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: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: <87wnl6leh5.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87o87gzjpd.fsf@neverwas.me> <878ryiwxf4.fsf@posteo.net> <87r1caseo5.fsf@neverwas.me> <87fsryehfx.fsf@posteo.net> <877ddaxrod.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="1953"; 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 Wed Nov 17 21:23:21 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 1mnRSh-0000Ca-VI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:23:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42836 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRSg-0001MQ-PC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:23:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57130) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRSQ-0001KX-Bm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:23:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50684) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRSQ-0005Ej-1M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:23:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRSP-0005Jl-T6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:23:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philip Kaludercic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:23:01 +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.163718054820368 (code B ref -1); Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:23:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Nov 2021 20:22:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33997 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRRs-0005IR-H8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:22:28 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:44180) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRRq-0005IJ-1D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:22:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRRm-000162-Cj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:22:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:50811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mnRRj-00059G-CW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:22:22 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54819240026 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:22:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1637180536; bh=rRgOPHOZJUn9zsqOjOXyBOxEnTGREAX7OV5/7DpO7ao=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=mzbbCXKn8WE9hLBo5klKtKjLMBlBKp1LAjQjZaPhNcDlDk7aYEDk8XYo0Nl+8UP+u xW6qSmkhCO/C4ahO9TOT9WgftkrdjosxS0WLBA/jQ5wT2B/SJ3rARWX/xoJrqB+aDx /UohDlx/PQysgrxbFF8z9xTs1aZ+IVsAvzilotODukOh8mYmhHvKfkVBiopxJ9PGCY 7vmoFZ3kBbZarfee+Mx3rjacR+4jMHczAI+SPa98cbnZKvSnijMOYH6RLHtZqNybRu CppG6WILZ+PY02EdZNd0eMZvVs+T7yRCBseqvxPn3DZZBcBnO+WeurQqAGkozrRZj5 VJwVRhJIoaPGw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4HvZ935dgtz9rwg; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:22:15 +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: <877ddaxrod.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:07:14 -0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.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:220256 Archived-At: "J.P." writes: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >>> Standard replies are quite mysterious. From what I can gather: >> >> [...] >> >> I understand the issue, but am still hesitant. If this is vague, then >> it seems better to err on the side of safety > > What's mysterious and vague isn't the existence of a capability called > standard-replies. No such capability currently exists. As mentioned in > my last reply (not sure if you saw that one), the closest thing is > inspircd.org/standard-replies. Hope that makes sense. > >> Or are there any real downsides to being more explicit? > > No downsides at present because you request one cap per line. And you > have no interdependent caps as yet. So long as both remain true, there's > nothing to worry about. And rcirc doesn't make you accrue flood debt, > so early messages (even spurious ones) don't cost extra. Ok, then I think we should leave it the way it is for now. > In ERC's case, we *do* have to worry because we implement 302 and have > multiple dependencies. If any one gets NAK'd, there goes the ball game. > There's also some undefined behavior [1] that can turn connection > registration into a bit of a limbo without additional planning (should > you ever decide to go that route). Thanks. I think you should report this as a separate bug report. > [1] https://github.com/ircv3/ircv3-specifications/pull/400#issuecomment-579063998 > -- Philip Kaludercic