[dcc2] Comments

[myndzi]

codemastr: It's always an issue - the more lines, the higher your
flood level. DCCs aren't the only thing going on on your connection,
and remember that mIRC accompanies its DCC CTCPs with a notice as
well. Just because none of them are likely to put you over the burst
threshold doesn't mean that effort should not be made to reduce the
"footprint" so to speak. Otherwise you're just taking a "good enough"
attitude, which isn't really desirable.

Lathiat: Yeah, I remember you... just can't remember from where :P

Also, now that it appears my messages go through, a brief comment on
the discussion about DCC Chat -- all that crap is beyond the scope
here. The 'application tokens' are meant to be passed on to whatever
does something once the connection is established. I am of the opinion
that DCC Chat should be left as-is, and if someone wants to create a
Partyline protocol, go for it. But it should be separate. And on that
note, maybe it'd be a good idea to "extract" the specifics pertaining
to send and chat from the DCC2 protocol and arrange it so that they
are separate documents?

Re: CTCPs to "do things" in "enhanced" chats; you're better off
designing a protocol for that than tacking things onto the basic one
that exists. Perhaps one similar to IRC... but then where is the line
here? What's the purpose? DCC Chat is essentially a direct query;
beefing it out into a full service IRCD is rather pointless.

-myndzi