At 07:51 PM 9/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Is there any short or long-term goals to this list?

Anyhow... so what now, gentlemen (and ladies[?!!?])?

My focuses at the moment regarding DC are hashes and more correct hub linking support.

I know that fusbar and sandos have expressed a desire for hashes, and that there's considerable interest among some users who post on the DC++ forums as well.

I hadn't touched the hashing code in a while, until sandos pointed out to me a minor omission that was causing it to behave poorly. Since then, I've fixed that, but it's still not particularly near being ready to be enabled by default.

Hub linking support for the current DC protocol isn't difficult, but rather ugly and nonextensible due to different code required to handle:
(a) $CTM, $RCTM, $To: pulling out the source and target nicks when each has a slightly different format.
(b) $SR: same as (a), but with the additional requirement that the final source nick is stripped from the message itself.
(c) Main chat messages, $MyINFO, etcetera: similar to (a), but handled differently due to their being broadcast messages.
(d) Kick, redirect, and any future messages handled by the hub itself rather than its users.
(e) Login messages: these should probably stay local, so aren't a concern of mine. Their handling must special cased by the hub in any case, so there's no great loss in their having non-standard formats.

fusbar's CTCP proposal strikes me as the nicest way to more easily route DC messages, by standardizing a method by which hubs can determine their sources and destinations. Group (d) would seem to require some sort of null destination group.

-cologic