Closed Bug 14207 Opened 25 years ago Closed 21 years ago

IIM - IRC Instant Messaging

Categories

(Other Applications :: ChatZilla, enhancement, P5)

enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED WONTFIX
Future

People

(Reporter: BenB, Unassigned)

References

()

Details

This is one more IM protocol, based on IRC and mail. It's just an idea. It could be implemented on top of Rob Gindas ChatZilla.
Priority: P3 → P5
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Is this the appropriate Component?
Assignee: mozilla → rginda
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
rginda
Em, what's going on?
Assignee: rginda → mozilla
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Component: other → chatzilla
Updating QA contact. old bug...close out?
QA Contact: leger → rginda
Mass-LATER
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → LATER
verified, lets get chatzilla into a more stable/finished state and then think about this
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Target Milestone: M20 → mozilla0.9.1
LATER -> Future
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: LATER → ---
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9.1 → Future
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Wouldn't this just be the same thing as sending a PRIVMSG to an individual? Or DCC chat? Seems redundant to me.
No, you need to know the nick/IP first. IIM is about revealing that *selectively*.
Getting this off the chatzilla bug list.
Component: chatzilla → Browser-General
Robert, I hope you don't mind me asking, but why is this not a chatzilla bug? It certainly sounds like a feature request for the IRC client.
a. It's not a bug in chatzilla. b. No one is doing anything with it. c. It's not very clear what the point of the bug is. d. All of the above. It may be hard to tell, but I do occasionaly look at my chatzilla bug list. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing this one on the list. If BenB wants to talk about a pie-in-the-sky IM program, he can do it on his website. BugZilla is not the place for this.
a) It's a request for a feature using IRC. That puts it in chatzilla territory. b) There are lots of RFEs in bugzilla that nobody is working on. c) The attached URL explains it. d) Of the reasons given, only (a) argues that it doesn't belong in the chatzilla component, and it's not a valid argument. If you're tired of seeing it, just assign it to nobody@mozilla.org. If you think it'd be a bad idea (as I do) then it should be resolved WONTFIX.
I don't own the bug, so I'm not going to close it with any status. I'm tired of seeing it on the chatzilla bug list. It's not assigned to me, that's not the problem. This bug doesn't refer to any problem in the chatzilla code, and it does not clearly propose any changes to the chatzilla code. It is a useless bug that does nothing but add a row to the results of a "bugs in the chatzilla component" query. What makes this a bug in chatzilla? How do you know its not a bug in mIRC or XChat? Bugzilla is not the place for this kind of discussion. Do it in the newsgroups, where threads full of people who propose ideas that they don't plan on implementing can be easily ignored.
QA Contact: rginda → mozilla
"Bug" in bugzilla.mozilla.org means "task". This bug is a proposed enhancement for ChatZilla, not XChat, mIRC or Mozilla Navigator. This makes it belong to the ChatZilla component. If you are tired of seeing it, improve your query (e.g. list only bugs assgined to you). If you think, it should not be fixed (even if somebody volunteered to work on it), mark it wontfix. I am unlikely to work on this bug, so assigning to nobody. Feel free to mark wontfix, if you think that is the right resolution.
Assignee: mozilla → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Or employ RESOLVED-LATER :)
-> chatzilla
Component: Browser-General → ChatZilla
rginda said he doesn't want to see this bug. Note that a number of open-source, multi-protocol IM clients are already implementing IRC, thereby making it usable in IM style, however without the access control enhancements proposed here. By now, we already have an open IM protocol (Jabber), which some companies, clients and users are adopting and which does give access control and many other advanced features. This proposed protocol here is not terribly backwards compatible with existing IRC clients (gives ugly nicknames), and the advantage of primitive "access control" is not worth the trouble, esp. considering better schemes. Thus, WONTFIXing.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago21 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Product: Core → Other Applications
No objections to the wontfix in years -> verified.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.