|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252 |
I have to wonder if removing those numbers would affect scripts that require a certain version in order for them to work.
I have a few scripts that I have written for myself or for others, and most of them require a certain version to be returned in $version in order to ensure that certain commands and identifiers are present.
I don't know if the return from $version affects or is affected by the return from CTCP VERSION
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330 |
No, $version isn't affected by changes to the CTCP VERSION.
Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 395
Pan-dimensional mouse
|
|
Pan-dimensional mouse
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 395 |
I think it's almost time to close this thread :S
Ok, Lets face it, Chances are: The version reply will never be able to be halted internally.
Note to Khaled:
1. Some users would like to be able to ignore on version request.
2. Some users would like the option to remove the version number from the reply
3. Other users want to change the reply completely.
#EOF.
[02:16] * Titanic has quit IRC (Excess Flood)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031 |
#1 is me .. I would like to just not send a reply at all without having to ignore CTCP's altogether, not for security or any reason like that, I just don't want to reply to them. Maybe a new /ignore switch like -v ? That would be just as good and it would allow us to add exceptions, like the networks that have bots that send version requests to connecting clients.
~ Edit ~
If a new ignore swtich were to be added, it should probably also effect custom version replies. If the user can send a reply for their script(s) then they can send a reply for the client too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 395
Pan-dimensional mouse
|
|
Pan-dimensional mouse
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 395 |
I definately agree with that... perhaps even a if nick is not on a common channel with you, to ignore it.
This would *HELP* to prevent several issues.
Including blocking network bots.
[02:16] * Titanic has quit IRC (Excess Flood)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918 |
You probably don't want to prevent network bots from ctcp versioning you, that's how they tell you're not a drone and don't give you a nice gline.
- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031 |
I'm not sure what he meant, but I meant that with a version switch for the ignore command, that would allow exceptions to be added, as which network bots (or whoever) could be added.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Vogon poet
|
|
Vogon poet
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139 |
Just ignore all CTCP's so you don't receive the request to reply to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
