I don't know it it's possible but if it's - would be a great idea to implement in channel status command the last user added and the last user removed from the channel ( including the one who added - and the one who removed ) ( only the last - to don't use too much memory ) - using this Cservice could stop many take-overs produced in registered channels.
For example in many channels have 10+ users with access 400+ and if a take-over occurs ( and the one who made it remove himself ) it is a hard ( sometimes impossible ) job for manager to find out who added the username - using this implementation the manager could find and punish the one who added.
It is just an idea - if any manager had select ( to his channel access list ) only trustworthy persons everything will be ok and this command won't be necessary - but 90% of channels managers won't select only these kind of persons - and for that I'm thinking to this solution.
Best regards , Kry !
Kry... at least you admit it and you are aware of the answer of your suggestion ... and I don't know but it sounds silly to me ... of course channel admins should add only trustful persons !... whats the use of having so many "complicated" commands, this kind of takeovers are common among those users who create and register channels over night and have nothing to do with CHAT, trust me on this one ... after all this years ... , some users are creating some channels with no purpose, then they register it with bogus usernames and if they get away with it they will mass invite other users and add them with access just so they could stick to that channel and of course the result is takeover in most of the cases ..., on the other hand .... we should always think of something much more ... practical ... since we are not creating new modes/commands/etc for the old users ! we want undernet to run smooth for users, especially for the new ones.
We could have in the status command only a short line that tells us that the *!*@* was triggered by (user) who was/is(in case no action was taken yet and he is still in the access list) added by (+400's user)..., so it would be something similar with the banlist right ? yea but here this could be recorded for 7 days for example, that way you could know who did it, since some of them ban *!*@* and then they remove them selfs from the access list, at least you avoid all those lines with
the last user added and the last user removed from the channel ( including the one who added - and the one who removed )
Even so ... I don't want to think at the "resources" chapter of this