From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "J.P." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51342: 29.0.50; remove non-CAPs from rcirc capability list Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:50:29 -0700 Message-ID: <87y26ge96i.fsf@neverwas.me> 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="27958"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cc: 51342@debbugs.gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 26 05:51:25 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 1mfDUi-00075E-J4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 05:51:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37272 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDUh-0006yn-Gh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55584) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDUM-0006fF-Jv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33215) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDUM-0007Ce-9h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDUL-0004aS-SX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:51:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "J.P." Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 03:51:01 +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.163522024617611 (code B ref -1); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 03:51:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Oct 2021 03:50:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44761 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDU2-0004Zv-Ua for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:50:46 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:39396) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDU1-0004Zn-8q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:50:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDTz-00066n-QX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:50:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-108-mta52.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.52]:38041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfDTx-0006cR-E1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:50:39 -0400 Original-Received: from filter004.mxroute.com ([149.28.56.236] filter004.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta52.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 17cbab8982b0000b55.001 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 03:50:32 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 1ac32f3851cefd0d4be21ab79fab4b81f2e7595bcbd7 X-Originating-IP: [149.28.56.236] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neverwas.me ; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=U+Tt8T4W+pHdjGCjg+djQHNtj/VunNAJq4T4TyZGahk=; b=bmY68jEFgFBOHabsQFhEGlUZ6o 8DsVDW96h8BtY+/FlV347AmYpa6VLdgj7RthCff1erg3CoiO2Ehud11FyvDjEuKxggM/n/s7Egeff wT2oC6u79It9xtPj2/J68BUZTEhGdNH+CbcZb0ii4jASzmiQp5hKcGNgTV+oq45mnCN3iChKfeQVO VKhptT86a+N0qE3LHlXH8HtcfAm3+QbCcw4A6B4AsG1+Q4nl1TC8Kc3RfA7EXlHLcaDFHMcGMljF+ Da7UZpdURof3kTgiD2gNZPxzDKuSJ7dlC8S+ZY7r/f8Ah+nM3wvJ5PAqQkEjJu9TDRi5PWyyDqwLo XG6yD5mQ==; In-Reply-To: <87r1caseo5.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Sun, 24 Oct 2021 07:03:38 -0700") X-AuthUser: masked@neverwas.me X-Zone-Spam-Resolution: no action X-Zone-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1, required=15, tests=[ARC_NA=0, URIBL_BLOCKED=0, FROM_HAS_DN=0, TO_DN_SOME=0, MIME_GOOD=-0.1, NEURAL_SPAM=0, RCPT_COUNT_TWO=0, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO=0, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM=0, MIME_TRACE=0, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM=0] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.175.108.52; envelope-from=jp@neverwas.me; helo=mail-108-mta52.mxroute.com X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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:218352 Archived-At: "J.P." writes: > However, I *have* noticed at least one progressive IRCd sending > standard replies not defined in any spec [1]. > > [...] > > [1] https://github.com/ircv3/ircv3-specifications/pull/276 That link is bogus/unrelated (sorry). It's actually a :irc.org FAIL NICK NICKNAME_RESERVED tester :Nickname is reserved ... that I encountered, but it's not documented anywhere (that I could find). It's sent by Ergo 2.6.1 whether or not you request any caps. NICKNAME_RESERVED was ostensibly created to prevent confusion with the traditional 433/ERR_NICKNAMEINUSE, which accompanies it in the same burst. Whether it's safe to expect such redundancy across the board when nothing dependent has been negotiated is anyone's guess, but the existence of the vendor cap inspircd.org/standard-replies [1] perhaps tips things in favor of the yeas. This cap gives permission for a server to send undeclared replies in standard-replies form, possibly in lieu of traditional ones, like 433. > I can only guess they assume clients not privy to the new syntax are > resilient enough to take these in stride [2]. Yeah, "new syntax" is just confusing. What I meant was rather than extending the IRC message format, a standard-replies declaration merely specifies a concrete reply within the constraints of the broader protocol, meaning [@tags] [:src] cmd p0 p1 p2 ... pn-1 :pn [@tags] [:src] [ ... ] : from the spec is just a way of getting us ready for specific interface descriptions, like those for setname [2]. So when folks talk about safely degrading in this context [3], they mean devolving to a catch-all handler (usually NOTICE) for all unrecognized/unhandled replies. Thanks. [1] https://docs.inspircd.org/3/modules/cap/ [2] https://ircv3.net/specs/extensions/setname#errors [3] https://github.com/inspircd/inspircd/issues/1809