From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tassilo Horn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [feature/rcirc-update] Reconnects don't seem to work anymore Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87a6nqfblz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <871r98af1n.fsf@gnu.org> <877dj0wtwr.fsf@posteo.net> <87y2bg8y0k.fsf@gnu.org> <871r938u3v.fsf@gnu.org> <8735tjxft7.fsf@posteo.net> <87zgvqykkv.fsf@gnu.org> <87pmwmx0gl.fsf@posteo.net> <87o8c6fls8.fsf@gnu.org> <87lf7aw91d.fsf@posteo.net> <87eed2fdvl.fsf@gnu.org> <87czsmw77c.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27918"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 28.0.50 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 16 10:39:08 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ltR4m-0007B5-3t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:39:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55204 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltR4k-0001Zu-W6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33656) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltR40-0000GY-G0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:20 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34228) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltR40-0007QI-8v; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:20 -0400 Original-Received: from auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.227]:58235) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltR40-0001pA-6V; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:20 -0400 Original-Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D876227C0054; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:19 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedvledgtdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfhgfhffvufffjgfkgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefvrghsshhi lhhoucfjohhrnhcuoehtshguhhesghhnuhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepve evieekteekveeigfefffeivdetgeduvdffueeuudevgedttdehvdfhueevfffhnecuvehl uhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhrnhdomh gvshhmthhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqkeeijeefkeejkeegqdeifeehvdel kedqthhsughhpeepghhnuhdrohhrghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:38:18 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <87czsmw77c.fsf@posteo.net> X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270839 Archived-At: >> Fine with me but I'm keen to learn about the use-case where the >> current behavior is wanted. I guess there is a use-case because >> otherwise the IRC server wouldn't have that implemented as-is. > > I was thinking about when you want to message a friend who is > currently marked as away. "Marked as being away" is different to offline/doesn't exist, right? So if I'd "/msg philipk Hello" I'd still want that only philipk receives the message and not some other user p, ph, phi, or whoever. >> And IMHO when messaging nickserv or other service bots receiving >> confidential data, the current behavior is not acceptable. I'm not sure >> if the automatic authentication in terms of `rcirc-authinfo' checks if >> nickserv (or whatever) is actually available and, if not, falls into >> that trap just as I did by messaging the non-existent NickServ manually. > > That is true. It shouldn't be hard to add a check to ensure this. Great. Bye, Tassilo