Talk:IRC/Archive 1

message: I think the Search Engines section has way too much irrelevant discussion about the databases/programming languages used for IRC crawlers/websites. Any objections about removing it? -- intgr 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about [[Internet Relay Chat#Search Engines|IRC search engines]] 

message: I have removed the statement that the IRC protocol uses "a slightly modified version of ASCII", since neither I nor other experienced users could think of what it refers to. 149.254.192.204 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified version of ASCII 

message: I deleted this chunk of text because it goes into a level of detail on one tiny aspect of IRC which isn't even in the standard IRC set of commands.  It might be useful to add back in, but some thought should be applied with how to reinsert it.  It might make sense as a section titled "Exchanging files using IRC". -- RobLa 09:22 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
=== IRC commands ===
The @FIND command is used in IRC to look for and interchange archives.
To use the command, one must go to a depot channel, where this command is allowed. 
In the depot channel, a user can type the @find command, followed by the search string (singer and/or song title). The wildcard characters * and ? can be used in the search string. 
If an archive is found on a channel user's machine, the command will return a list of matches. Grabster returns a unique match list.
To request the archive, the user must type in the depot channel "!nick"  and the archive_name.
The @nick command can also be used on the depot channel to obtain information about a user and his or her files.
See also:
*Peer-to-peer
*MP3
:: For sure, I included it in the article "At find", but somebody put it in the IRC article. IRC file interchange it´s very important nowadays, like a IRC response to Napster and compatible interchange clients.
:::What about the @find peer-to-peer command ??. Where can one include it ??. I will create a new article about it, because it´s vital for peer-to-peering.
:: I've put that in depot channel now. --Shallot 00:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  @find file sharing 

message: The @FIND command is used in IRC to look for and interchange archives.
To use the command, one must go to a depot channel, where this command is allowed. 
In the depot channel, a user can type the @find command, followed by the search string (singer and/or song title). The wildcard characters * and ? can be used in the search string. 
If an archive is found on a channel user's machine, the command will return a list of matches. Grabster returns a unique match list.
To request the archive, the user must type in the depot channel "!nick"  and the archive_name.
The @nick command can also be used on the depot channel to obtain information about a user and his or her files.
See also:
*Peer-to-peer
*MP3
</blockquote>
:: For sure, I included it in the article "At find", but somebody put it in the IRC article. IRC file interchange it´s very important nowadays, like a IRC response to Napster and compatible interchange clients.
:::What about the @find peer-to-peer command ??. Where can one include it ??. I will create a new article about it, because it´s vital for peer-to-peering.
:: I've put that in depot channel now. --Shallot 00:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC commands 

message: I wonder, is there an official channel on IRC for the wikipedia, there must be!  --Alex
:Wikipedia:IRC Channel MadEwokHerd 00:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  #wikipedia 

message: It sure seems like "Internet Relay Chat" needs to be fully capitalized.  "Internet relay chat" could refer to any method of using the Internet and relays to enable chat.  "Internet Relay Chat" is the very specific form of Internet relay chat referred to in this article.  -- RobLa
RFC 1459 uses "Internet Relay Chat". The German and French Wikipedia use "Internet Relay Chat". "Internet Relay Chat" is the term used almost exclusively; it refers to a specific protocol. It is never used to describe any other chat system. I moved the article to reflect the more common capitalization.
--cprompt 23:40, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internet Relay Chat" versus "Internet relay chat" 

message: I've removed WebChat since it's not actually a large network (it only appears to be because their irc server software has about 30000 fake Service Agent users, while checking each local user count per server gives about 7000-8000 real users making it a medium-size network)
--Simon Arlott 15:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WebChat 

message: Grnet was added by SimonP with no explanation why. According to SearchIRC it only has about 200 users so it's not a large network. -- Simon Arlott 12:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this just shows that we may need List of IRC networks. --Shallot 13:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grnet 

message: The basic means of communication in an established IRC session is a channel which users can join and then send messages to, which are then relayed to all other users in the same channel. Channels which are available across an entire irc network are prepended with a '#', while those local to a server use '&'.  The prefix '+' is supported by some servers for 'modeless' channels - those without operators.
What is missing is the ! prefix, you can have !chan on some neworks as well as #chan &chan and +chan, though before someone starts to link wp:bb i didnt add it because i only know that it exists, not it's specific nature and how it differs from the rest. --  Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason   14:40, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
Common is only #channel.  +channels and &channels are pretty specific, so are !channels.  You might want to read http://ircnet.irchelp.org/channel.html, which reflects what it really means and why this is so.  iio will also tell you more about other specifica, which do not necesseraly need to apply to all networks or ircnet server versions.  What kind of features are supported by a server is also mentioned in the 004 Numeric upon connecting to any server.  (Though 004 is an extension also and not supported by all irc servers. sigh - the IRC Protocol is a single mess.  use silc instead. :)
:Actually, &channels are standard (RFC1459). +channels and !channels aren't (unless you count IRCnet's RFCs), but this is mentioned in the article.   By 004 do you mean 005?  This includes CHANTYPES=, and while it isn't yet standard, will hopefully be at some point (there is an internet-draft describing the draft specification). —Kate | Talk 14:53, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
::Is irc itself actually standard anyway? rfc1459 only describes it as a draft protocol and i belive has at least one place where its description differs from that used by all irc servers. Plugwash 15:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the '!' type of chan is missing 

message: IRC, is commonly pronouced as three, independent letters in a row, like acronym fashion. Though several documents that speak of IRC in its early days, explictly use the pronounciation "irk." — 64.233.204.182
: Depends where you are; I've been using IRC for a decade and have never heard anyone call it "irk". We don't tend to pronounce initialisms like that much in the UK anyways, though. — OwenBlacker 15:39, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
: I live in the US and have never heard it called "irk".  I heard mIRC called mirc once, and GUI pronounced "gooey", but both sounded rediculous. — Anonymous
::Hehe funny.. When in 1989 the first german IRCers met, they were shocked to find that they were pronouncing IRC in different ways. The people in Munich used to say irk whereas the guys in Erlangen were pronouncing it letter by letter as in eeh err tze. So this discussion is as old as IRC itself. I remember we agreed on the irk variant back then, but heh.. who cares about what we agreed upon.  ;)  VRML was supposed to be pronounced vermal (still most call it letter by letter) and WWW just dubdubdub but hey some stuff just doesn't make it.  --lynX 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should be added that IRC is pronouced as "irk" 

message: I believe some of the more subjective stuff here should be moved to the (underdeveloped) IRC_subculture article.  There's a lot of non-technical stuff here re: leet users, common irc panks, etc, that may be better suited to the subculture article than the article about IRC itself.  I'd like some commentary about that, as I'm certainly not going to go restructuring a major article like that without some support.  Overand 23:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC subculture 

message: IRC gained prominence when it was used behind the Iron Curtain to report on the fall of the USSR during a media blackout.
I don't think this is correct.  For one thing, the USSR didn't suddenly fall at any particular point in time - remember it was slowly and gently opened up bit by bit over a period of years, and one of the first things to change was more open media.  I think the author is thinking of the Soviet coup attempt of 1991 when old school communists attempted to take control to reverse Mikhail Gorbachev's progressive reforms.  I seem to remember my IRC-using nerd friends getting excited about it at the time.  I'm changing the article but preserve the old text here just in case. --Gypsum Fantastic 09:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaining prominence in "the fall of the USSR" 

message: The abuse section seems irrelevant to this subject.  Any program which allows user-to-user communication could be used for similar things.  Should this really be here? --Para45
* Yes, you're right. But unless there's an article about Internet chat abuse, I think it should stay. --Aurochs
===Forms of abuse===
The abuse section is very much related to this subject, or at least the one that has been deleted recently. I don't know neither User:A Man In Black nor User:Jigsy but I must agree with Jigsy that those points listed are important and verifiable by personal experience (anyone who knows IRC intensely, has had some experience of that kind). Actually the issues would be worth updating RFC 1324. Maybe there are some other publications? However, if this article goes so much into detail as explaining Timestamping vs. nick/channel delay it should as well in some way talk about these risks of abuse, and if you can't suggest a better way to present them, this is a start. Feel free to add a ((fact)), that's fair. Also a more encyclopedic tone wouldn't harm. Some of the examples are generic forms of online social hacking but some others are very very specific to IRC. It may not be very good marketing for IRC, but does IRC need any? Does anyone on IRC want new users that are uninformed of potential abuse? btw RFC 1324 is a nice historic document that may want to be listed in the article. Then again, there are huge amounts of historic documents about IRC... --lynX 06:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse section 

message: The abuse section is very much related to this subject, or at least the one that has been deleted recently. I don't know neither User:A Man In Black nor User:Jigsy but I must agree with Jigsy that those points listed are important and verifiable by personal experience (anyone who knows IRC intensely, has had some experience of that kind). Actually the issues would be worth updating RFC 1324. Maybe there are some other publications? However, if this article goes so much into detail as explaining Timestamping vs. nick/channel delay it should as well in some way talk about these risks of abuse, and if you can't suggest a better way to present them, this is a start. Feel free to add a ((fact)), that's fair. Also a more encyclopedic tone wouldn't harm. Some of the examples are generic forms of online social hacking but some others are very very specific to IRC. It may not be very good marketing for IRC, but does IRC need any? Does anyone on IRC want new users that are uninformed of potential abuse? btw RFC 1324 is a nice historic document that may want to be listed in the article. Then again, there are huge amounts of historic documents about IRC... --lynX 06:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forms of abuse

message: Quote: "Because most IRC implementations use an acyclic graph as their connection model, there is no redundancy, and outage of a server or a link can cause a netsplit."
While the quoted text kindly includes links to a page for "acyclic graph", there is no information about "connection model". Is this a technical term? What are the well known connection models? What is the accepted better alternative to an acyclic graph-based connection model? I know that protocols can be either connection-oriented (TCP) or connectionless (UDP), in other words, that a connection either exists or does not. HTTP 1.1 maintains a connection across queries, but I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "connection model"; maybe a "connection strategy". Bored 15:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have read the "netsplit" article, I see that the "connection model" refers to more than just the client-server connection, but to the entire network of connections on IRC. This is not especially clear from the context, which is about protocols, not the emergent behaviour of the IRC network. I suppose the alternative is to connect each server to multiple other servers, not just one, maintaining secondary connections as a backup for the first connection in the event the connected server on that connection cannot be reached. In any case, not sure that this datum is much use. Better in an article on general network design. Bored 15:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it does belong here because netsplits are an IRC quirk, and it isn't currently possible to connect servers in such a way as to avoid this situation. It does look rather odd in the "Technical information" section though.. madewokherd 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  communication model: definition? 

message: Why are there six networks in the 'big four'? The info is confusing.
Big Four are now the top four in the listed networks. Should not be hard to see who are actually the big four, because honestly they are the big four by atleast a factor of 2. Quakenet is 150k+, Undernet/Ircnet are 100k+, and Efnet is 70k+; the next highest are in the 30-35k range. Saying the big four changes (w.r.t. networks) is pretty silly given the statistics. TunkeyMicket 00:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed LinkNET and NewNet... both are <5000 users or have nothing of unique categorical interest, good addition to the general IRC network listing TunkeyMicket 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed silly Big Five reference, never been called the Big Five. Dal hardly has the user count the other four do. TunkeyMicket 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Four / Network List 

message: Someone had included EsperNet in the "Big Four" when the article on it describes it as medium-sized. Any explanation? Smeggysmeg 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think removing it was/is the right thing. madewokherd 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. -    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EsperNet 

message: As one who has used irc on and off since 1990 it's fun to read how various things have evolved. Takes me back. But I miss information on when (as in what year) the various features and versions were introduced. For instance, I remember the +channelnames, but can't for the best of me remember when the #channel-name were introduced (somewhere around 1993 or 94, maybe?). I think this should be stated in the article. Giving the irc-version when stuff changed is fine and appropriate, but stating the years as well would be very informative. So, I miss more dates in the article. Shanes 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates/Years for the various versions 

message: IRC Clients for Windows
http://www.ircreviews.org/clients/platforms-windows.html
:There's already a List of IRC clients under See Also in this article. madewokherd 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a list of IRC software  

message: This appears to be a malicious website. It tried to send several dozen spy cookies to my computer and launched several popups that bypassed the IE blocker. One of them played an audio advertisement, and something caused my computer to run out of memory and almost shut down--the first time I have ever had such a thing happen. Thus, I have removed it. It appears not to be very useful, anyway.--HQCentral 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full of copyvios too. -Barry- 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packetnews 

message: Should this article be "Internet relay chat"? Isopropyl 11:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. --Ifrit 12:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: This is perhaps client specific.  In mIRC, arguably the most popular client, this simply executes any identifiers inside the line following the command.  Example //say $calc(1+2) will execute /say 3.  //quit will just /quit.  - BalthCat 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double forward slash... 

message: Should links to XDCC search engines such as IRCspy and Packetnews be in this article? I saw another objection to Packetnews but that was due to invasive advertising/spyware. Is it valid to exclude XDCC search engines because they could be used to locate copyright infringing materials, or not? I mean, one *could* use Google or an ftp search engine to locate such materials, as well. Such uses of XDCC search engines are probably more common than noninfringing uses, but xdcc offer scripts can share any kind of files, whether legal or illegal, I guess. Thoughts?
:Guns can be used to kill people, and we still include information about them.  So no, I don't see how it's valid to exclude them based on the legality or illegality of their use.  Much like VCRs, XDCC searches are not, by definition, piracy, anyway.  - BalthCat 13:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, the article is about IRC—not XDCC, or even DCC. XDCC is a very indirectly related technology (a sub-protocol to a sub protocol), extensive coverage of which belongs, at closest, in the DCC article. In fact, it has its very own article. [Now that i've typed this, i notice that the original post is old. Oh well. It's a good point, so i'll post it anyway. :)]—überRegenbogen (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XDCC search engines 

message: That might be the case in certain places, but certainly not in Bulgaria. I don't think even most who use it here are aware it can be used for file sharing.88.80.99.27 15:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File sharing association? 

message: I'd recommend removing the list of "Some other IRC networks" from that section. Every single network with twelve users is adding themselves in there as a self-promotion -- and this is getting silly. The purpose of this article is not to list networks. We could keep just the big four and other networks can be added to Category:IRC networks. Or we could do a list of IRC networks if anyone feels like it is needed. DLX 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are no complaints, I am going to remove that portion. Please discuss this here if you want to restore it. DLX 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networks and URLs 

message: Why did 24.200.103.9 remove the paragraph on Bouncer (IRC)?
They are a relevant phenomenon of IRC since IRC doesn't provide
identity protection. They are considered uncool because they
raise the overall load on the network, but that too is an IRC
specific problem caused by its distributed real-time database,
which is generally a bad design thing. So being against bouncers
(and bots) is beside the point.  --lynX 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering it was deleted by an anon with no edit summary i'm assuming it was vandalism (or a newbie not understanding our interface) and reverting it as such. Plugwash 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bouncers!? 

message: Itsnot  a con of IRC, its a pro, thats why they made P2P, its harder for FBI etc. to interfere. SOftware prices are too high, so why blame people for file sharing!! Realg187 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV Rstandefer 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I find this man to be honest at his upmost 65.70.239.216 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piracy 

message: For instance, I noticed several instances of the wiki IRC channels explicitly prohibiting this 'public logging' term which doesn't appear to exist (in wiki word searches). I think it matters, maybe this matter is more complex than is required for a wikipedia? PS I'm staying away from editing until my edits stop being undone for whatever reason. -Kristan Wifler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.51.232 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing or misdocumented Information? / Lack of IRC related wiki info? 

message: I think a section needs to be added about the servers fight, expecially mainsteam ones like DAlNET and Undernet, against less savory types, such as Child Pornographers and Pedophiles. It seems like DalNET had a problem with these types back in the late 90s, and is worth a mention.
- Tiger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.139.37 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of less savory IRC characters. 

message: The history/evolution section of this article is terrible. A list of protocol versions with unexplained numerical referencing doesn't make a history. Could someone who knows about the early days of IRC please add something useful? How did the use of it evolve after its creation? Thanks.--Ibis3 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have collected a few documents at http://about.psyc.eu/IRC#Historic_Documents (oops I mentioned that link before.. nevermind) but it would take some time to sit down and make something truly encyclopedic out of it. Technical evolution did indeed have quite an impact on life on IRC - like the introduction of channel operatorships, it made the until then easy-going socially almost flat chat a hierarchical one, and attitudes became rougher and channel operatorships became reason enough to attack servers. And before that I remember when we didn't have alphanumeric channels yet, but does anybody really want to know? --lynX 22:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history? 

message: I miss some coverage of major IRC channels. Ten years ago I was active on #Norge on EFNet wihch during peak hours had more than 600 concurrent users. I also remember a channel called #Daytraders which had over 1,000 users. I have always been frustrated by the near impossibility of going out to look for busy IRC channels that cover some particular scene or subject. It would be nice if this article could provide some information on this, the content aspect of IRC. __meco 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to create a list of channels, if you want to, but as a separate article, please. Also, let me point out that owners of those channels may not be happy about listing their channels en masse in easily accessible and "semi-official" place. Many older IRCers remember crackdowns on channels who had publicity in mass media. DLX 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not currently an IRC user, and besides, I was only thinking of such channels that might not object to being listed in such a way. It's merely a suggestion for someone who would know of any such reliable lists or surveys in existence. __meco 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I see the point to be honest. Channels simply having lots of people in them is hardly something noteworthy, and in many cases not considered a good thing (ie. how can 1000 people chat on a single channel unless most of them are idle anyway), so it's not really something that has a particular reason to be included in an encylopedia. For people that want to know there are sites like http://searchirc.com/ that deal explicitly with these kinds of queries. I don't know of any specific channels that have such a history or noteability that they warrant encyclopedic entries of their own, so it seems unnecessary to list channels based solely on arbitrary metrics like largest, busiest, or oldest. - ExNihilo 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think http://searchirc.com/ might partly answer my query. I cannot see this site mentioned in any Wikipedia articles yet. Perhaps it ought to be? __meco 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about netsplit.de? - Jigsy 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That also seems to be a useful resource. __meco 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of IRC channels 

message: Sorry, for not writing this in the right form, I only want to let you ppl know, that the screenshot is kinda funny, if you read the text there: wikipedia s****, maybe someone can edit this, thanks, and greets from lotp.de —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.182.119.230 (talk • contribs).
::It's funny. And why did you put asterixes over the word "sucks"? 66.24.104.37 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Screenshot-XChat- Moniker42 @ FreeNode - -ubuntuforums (+tn)-1.png]]

message: I'm often asked "what is IRC", I explain... it's then responded with "Yeah, but what is IRC all about?"... My only answer is that it's more of a culture, not just a "chat room". I think something needs to be noted in this article with regards to IRC culture. --Hm2k 11:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one thing that IRC is still very special in, is the culture of idling in large channels. The way you stay connected in real-time with everyone on a particular topic has hardly been addressed by other technologies, either because it simply doesn't work (scalability issues as in the case of XMPP), because a suitable user interface is not provided (most IM systems and webchats), because the problem of SPAM is not sufficiently dealt with (public Skype rooms could actually be used like IRC channels, if it weren't for SPAM and other issues) or simply because it isn't known (we do plenty of productive idling on PSYC, but nobody knows but us). So, yes, I think it is a good idea to elaborate on the useful culture of idling in a separate document from idling.. Idling (Internet)? Then link to it from those technologies who enable that.  --lynX (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: At many places in the article, there are descriptions of commands. But why are they prefixed with forward slashes? That's not how IRC, the protocol, works. That is purely client-specific. I'm sure there are clients that does not use the forward slash this way. BESIDES from Netcat/Telnet ;-) Consider removing the forward slashes. 81.231.71.96 16:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, aside from telnetting in directly a few times (irritating), I've never seen a client that used no symbol, or another symbol, to prefix commands.  They are, if they exist (you yourself say you are sure in a sense that sounds like you are assuming) in the minority, and anyone reading the article in full would have read: "In most clients users can enter commands by prefixing them with /; depending on the command, these may either be passed directly to the server (generally used for commands the client does not recognise), passed to the server with some modification or handled entirely by the client."  I think that covers it sufficiently. - BalthCat 05:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're assuming IRC is merely a protocol on top of TCP. It's also the name of the whole system that the user interacts with, and most users will never have anything directly to do with the protocol. To document IRC's behaviour in terms of the commands sent to the server would be like explaining the concept of blind carbon copy in the article on email by explaining RCPT TO. Marnanel 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commands for IRC client software are based very much on the protocol. After being on IRC for a couple of months, the RFCs were very easy to understand. /whois = WHOIS, /list = LIST, /who = WHO, /mode = MODE, etc. Conversely, using Gmail for a couple of months did not make me an iota more familiar with SMTP. IRC clients may abstract the protocol somewhat, but not very much. The big picture is commands being sent to the client to the server, server to server, and server to client; not how clients parse commands the user enters and how it displays results. Internet Relay Chat client software might be appropriate for the latter function, if it existed.  GracenotesT § 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Rewritten. Marnanel 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why some much client-specific? 

message: Opped is used in the article, but I can't find a definition or link.  — qwip 71.230.106.167 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten. Marnanel 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opped? 

message: How is there no mention of bash.org?  I'm adding a link.  24.174.190.156 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bash.org 

message: "There is a small design fault in IRC regarding modes that apply to users on channels", To me this sounds like somebodies personal opinion.  Could somebody with authority on the issue weight in?  Also, the example provided isn't very clearly stated.--20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: There were a number of places in the text that said things like "a IRC network".  Does that mean that someone out there in the world pronounces IRC as "irk"? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't. I guess you can change them all to "an IRC network." Neal (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A IRC network" 

message: The article says For a discussion of the evolution of server-side IRC protocols and the various IRCd incarnations, see the separate article on IRC daemons yet then it goes into deep techie details about timestamp vs. delay, not of interest for any IRC user, let alone someone who just wants to understand what IRC is and what can be done with it. Should everything related to interserver IRC protocol move out to that other document? --lynX (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interserver IRC Protocols 

message: It's quite obvious that IRC is an *application* and therefore is in the application layer. The article does not cover anything about TCP or the layer model and I think it's quite pointless to have a table regarding this in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.22.157 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 5 layers tcp-model