Val Lorentz

Oh, I just realized it's an issue in the existing translation... I guess these should be fixed first, then

What is the issue?

@thesamesam any idea what's up?

Note: the behavior does not change if `*` is replaced by the nick in the two NAKs.

I'm not sure it is reasonable to make this change now, what if existing clients expect the 903 to proceed? For example, if I understand https://github.com/SrainApp/srain/blob/2234bd9e05e293300db476a9ba687a79efe6f153/src/core/app_irc_event.c#L1747-L1768 correctly, this client uses...

Looks like a cool idea! Even if it does not get implemented by IRC daemons (or networks), this could be partially provided by (non-privileged) bots.

That's implied by "If a response consists of more than one message, a batch MUST be used to group them into a single logical response"; but I guess it doesn't...

I also think this is great, as extbans currently can't be implemented by any form of automation (bots/scripts, GUIs, or simply showing a human-friendly message in the log) without scrapping...

Yeah, that's reasonable

> @progval Would this be enough to address your concern? > > "Servers MUST support matching exact account names. Servers MAY support matching account masks and other server-specific extensions." Sure....