William Balcerski wrote:
> Seeing as how I cannot even connect to his server due to a 3 year+
> siteban, plus he won't speak to me, I really have no desire for my
> client to be used on his server.

Fascinating idea, that you believe the client is yours, yet you are
building on the work of many developers before you.  The concept is
alien to me; I can never think of the server code as mine.

> If he were willing to work with me, I could accept your patch as is,
> to just stop the default login.

The policy of some server owner is inconsequential to the technical
argument, that the client would be more useful with my patch than
without it.  If you've no technical grounds for refusal, then I need not
participate further on this issue.

Stas Pirogov wrote:
> Now when you just do same and disable the client from being able
> to connect to tamu you do bad job to client users, not to
> tamu's admin.

Agreed.  The ethics go beyond my limit ... to hurt a friend of an enemy
is the stuff of terrorism.  If he has an issue with a server owner, he
should talk to the server owner about it.  Source code is a blunt
weapon, which seldom strikes true.

Zach wrote:
> I really don't see it as a bad thing if players had to give their real
> names to play.

The player registration feature is not yet complete.  I'll take patches
to improve it.

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.us.netrek.org/pipermail/netrek-dev/attachments/20060507/6cb537e4/attachment.pgp