The existing approach to invite-notify is deeply flawed--it currently
notifies only the target user's server, and that can't be fixed without
sending notifies for invites that end up not happening.
I'm resolving this by broadcasting a second message, INVITED, from the
target user's server. I'm also pulling it out into an extension while
I'm at it--invite notifies reveal new information, so I don't think
they should be mandatory.
Also fix up some return values and stuff to use bool (or void if
nothing). I just did it whilst I was here.
According to jilles, the return value used to signify whether or not the
client had exited. This was error-prone and was fixed a long, long time
ago, but the return value was left int for historical reasons.
Since the return type is not used (and has no clear use case anyway),
it's safe to just get rid of it.
The behaviour is the same as /msg except that where
/msg would send RPL_UMODEGMSG to the user, the /invite
is instead let through. This counts as a notification
for caller_id_wait like RPL_UMODEGMSG.
Checks are on the target user's server, which means an
error message will appear after RPL_INVITING.
This must be because the accept list is not globally
known.
Similar to /msg, inviting a user that is not in a channel
you have op or voice in requires a free target; opers always
have a free target.
Being invited adds the source as a reply target.
addition to +i. As before, a restrictive mode must be in
place at /invite time for the invite to have an effect;
+r does not count as a restrictive mode if the user is
logged in; +l and +j always count as restrictive modes to
allow for cases where they would allow join at /invite
time but not when the user tries to join.
