repost.
* Allow b_channel_join_ignore_password for server groups and global client
permissions only, others make no sense.
YES IT DID! Now you have gone and screwed up my permissions. My clients that are in a Normal group can not normally access password protected channels. We have various password protected channels that some of the people in our Normal group have been given access to via this permission, not everyone has access to necessarily the same set of rooms.
"Just give them the password" you say. yeah, not a good idea, that just invites trouble of them giving it to someone else "for one time only, promise not to do it again" situations. It is more secure to allow the individuals access via the ignore password then to give out the password.
Please change this BACK to the way it was!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcazar
Or use client permissions and give those users that permission.
That's what they took away was the client permission. I could give people access to a single channel using the client permission version of ignore password. This is now gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroTKA
If they give away the password, then change the password and don't give it to them.
Id rather just leave a long, strong password on the channel and give people permission. MUCH MUCH MORE SECURE! Including from the TS hackers. I can't wait for that to start. We'll see how good this thing is then!
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Ludwig
what ? you can set that permission still on servergroups AND global client.
all other just makes no sense
Global client or server group is fine for global access. However, if you have a person that you want to allow access to ONE particular passworded channel, WITHOUT giving out a password, you can no longer do that. We were able to set IGNORE PASSWORD on that client's permissions for INDIVIDUAL channels, and can NOT do that now. Like i said, that is a MORE SECURE way of doing it than giving out passwords. Plus you don't have to worry about changing the password should you throw the person out, or they leave or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcazar
If you dont like TS, feel free to use other voicechat-programms.
Youre not obliged to use it.
And ranting will not change anything.
Just saying they should never took out a feature that was already in use. I especially had it in use quite a bit and it really messed up my permissions for everyone. There was a point to the feature obviously, as it was being used, so why get rid of something that worked? Like I said, FAIL TEAMSPEAK, wasting time removing something that worked just fine, while things that are broken go untouched still. If that's ranting then so is the entire suggestion forum, isn't that just people ranting about something they want added to teamspeak? If they don't like it they can use another one too then right? I'm not asking for a NEW feature, just one that we already had given back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azzy101
you cannot please everyone
yet no one complained about having the permission, but i am complaining about losing it as it was heavily in use. so why was it removed again? oh wait, cuz no one complained about it. might as well take half the features out then, you know all the other ones no one has complained about having because they like them and use them already.
freaking trolls. if your not part of the solution stay out of the conversation
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickW
I would say: Make that group a server group! Everything else really doesn't make sense, because all other rights are restricted to one channel, whereas the right gave access to all password protected channels.
no it wasnt, you could set it on a channel by channel basis for an individual.
So anyways, like I was saying, it made PERFECT sense to allow an individual access to a single channel using the permission without giving them the password. I don't even know what the passwords are as I use a strong password generator and just copy/paste it into the channel, so why would I want to give that out? It just compromises security. Put back what wasn't broken in the first place.