|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008
Hoopy frood
|
OP
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008 |
today i got this in status window:
(12:47) [CRAZY_SCIENTIST VERSION]
thing is if it was CTCP VERSION it would be
(12:xx) [CTCP something] requested by nickname (~id@host.domain)
but this wasnt nor ping, nor dcc, nor time... nor nothing...
it didnt even had CTCP inside...
unfortunately i dont have debug window working always so cant say what was it...
anyone has a clue?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,670
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,670 |
The default CTCP display is as you described first:
[Nickname CTCP-NAME]
Example: [11:15:47] [Mentality VERSION]
The only time it would be different is if you have a script which alters how it looks, so perhaps this script is faulty with CTCP versions? Or perhaps the script was disabled at that particular point?
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168 |
Can't say for sure, but it sounds to me like somebody is using a modified reply to a CTCP Version request. My knowledge in this area is limited, so I'm not going to try to show how it could be done, but I do know that it can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008
Hoopy frood
|
|
OP
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008 |
reply to both:
thing is that i DID NOT /ctcp version anyone
and if someone /ctcp version me, then i would get this:
(23:41) [CTCP VERSION] requested by user| (~id@host.domain)
beacuse my script generates that when someone requests ctcp, but i disabled MY reply so...
i dont understand still lol
because i didnt ctcp this person and if he ctcp me i would get different echo than one i got...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168 |
In that case, I've got no choice but to agree with your Subject line. weird thing...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,670
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,670 |
If it came through as you described, then he did CTCP you. I would say it's a faulty script.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008
Hoopy frood
|
|
OP
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,008 |
hmm... it seems that it isnt weird after all uhh im so ashamed now  (my mistake) hope no1 is angry on me...
Last edited by raZOR; 04/08/05 12:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168 |
If we were perfect, we wouldn't need to ask questions here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 206
Fjord artisan
|
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 206 |
If it came through as you described, then he did CTCP you. I would say it's a faulty script. As I understand it, you cannot halt the [nick VERSION] from showing, other than by ignoring ctcps. I have tried, and even made a feature suggestion to allow stopping that, though I can't seem to locate it via the search page. ctcp *:*:*: {
echo -at $nick sent you a CTCP: $1-
halt
}This code looks like it should keep it from displaying, right? Wrong. It stops anything except version from showing the old way. I am assuming that it is in some way related to the fact that you can't keep /halt the version reply from going out. This is still a behavior that I want changed (the displaying, not the replying).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168 |
To my understanding, that code would've worked with all CTCP's including Version, up to, but not including 6.16
I'm not sure how, but when Khaled did the modifications for 6.16, he made it so that the Version reply will send back properly no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
