Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

allow messaging grouped nicks #93

Open
cg505 opened this issue Nov 15, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

allow messaging grouped nicks #93

cg505 opened this issue Nov 15, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@cg505
Copy link
Member

cg505 commented Nov 15, 2019

The current PM delivery logic checks that the nick matches the user that's authenticated with nickserv. We should just check that the nick is registered (307).

@dkess
Copy link
Member

dkess commented Nov 16, 2019

We would still need to make sure the user is authenticated, since it's possible to have a nick without being authenticated (though ChanServ won't let you keep this for very long).

Dealing with grouped nicks makes this even more complicated, since now there are multiple IRC users we might want to route a Slack PM to. It could break continuity with multiple nicks. I'm not sure we could make this work in a way that's consistent, but I'm open to ideas.

@cg505
Copy link
Member Author

cg505 commented Nov 19, 2019

I think it should send your message to the exact nick you specify. As far as making sure the user is authenticated, we won't get a 307 message until the user has authenticated. I tested this.

@dkess
Copy link
Member

dkess commented Nov 19, 2019

It shouldn't send the message unless the user really is authenticated, otherwise someone could steal messages in the case I mentioned above.

@cg505
Copy link
Member Author

cg505 commented Nov 20, 2019

we won't get a 307 message until the user has authenticated

307 is sufficient to know that the user really is authenticated. Am I missing something?

@dkess
Copy link
Member

dkess commented Nov 20, 2019

Ohhhh I misread what this is saying, I think you're good, sorry for the confusion

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants