mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#198908 06/05/08 02:05 PM
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
A
AWEstun Offline OP
Fjord artisan
OP Offline
Fjord artisan
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
Is there a way to mask the CTCP VERSION that mIRC returns?


I registered; you should too.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,741
G
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
G
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,741
No.

-genius_at_work

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
A
AWEstun Offline OP
Fjord artisan
OP Offline
Fjord artisan
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
Well, that isn't no fun!


I registered; you should too.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
L
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
Yes there's a way.
.
.
..

..
.
.
..
.
.
.
Write your own IRC client smile


Code:
if $reality > $fiction { set %sanity Sane }
Else { echo -a *voices* }
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
L
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
LoL everytime I post a dll i get told off by other ops


Code:
if $reality > $fiction { set %sanity Sane }
Else { echo -a *voices* }
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Well the way I see it is, nowhere in the mIRC license agreement does it state that halting or changing the version reply is forbidden. The only mention of it is in the help file in the Ctcp events section where it states "Note: You can't prevent the standard version reply from being sent." meaning you are not able to prevent the standard version reply from being sent. Well that was written long before this dll was written so that is no longer true. Also, I think we should be able to choose to not send a version reply at all. That's what I use it for, not to change it.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
L
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
I personally am proud to be using mIRC and want everyone to know it kind of in a way. So I don't care if they version me + doesn't get me banned off servers that need a version reply or your booted off


Code:
if $reality > $fiction { set %sanity Sane }
Else { echo -a *voices* }
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

It's not that I'm ashamed to be using mIRC, if that were the case I would just change it to reply whatever client I wanted. I just don't want to reply at all because of 1) target change errors and 2) I just don't want to reply.

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
A
AWEstun Offline OP
Fjord artisan
OP Offline
Fjord artisan
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 329
I'm not ashamed of using mIRC either, just that on this private server, I'd like it to reply like the java programs do, so the sop's don't kill.


I registered; you should too.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Well you shouldn't use this for that purpose. wink

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 27
A
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
A
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 27
yes.. and without use of dlls... you can change version reply using /debug...


Suchorski @ FreeNode
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252
You can not legally hide or alter the default version reply from the mIRC executable. If you do, you are in violation of the EULA.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Originally Posted By: RusselB

You can not legally hide or alter the default version reply from the mIRC executable. If you do, you are in violation of the EULA.


The license agreement doesn't say anything of the sort. Hacking the exe to remove or alter the version reply would be a different story, but not using a dll or scripted solution.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,252
I'll double check the EULA

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
It may not technically be in the EULA but it's clearly not in the spirit of the license agreement. You can use a DLL to do any sort of modification of an executable (removing nag screens for instance) without having to actually touch the contents on disk, but that doesn mean it's "right".

I don't think changing the version reply is or should be supported here, frankly. If Khaled wanted people to change the reply he would not have put a fence up around the CTCP VERSION event. I think that settles the official sentiment on the issue, whether it's written in the EULA or not. Those who don't respect the authors wishes can feel free to write their own client free of all restrictions. Until then, the "version" of mIRC should always be "mIRC" and Khaled should get his credit where his credit is due.

Keep in mind that even in Open Source Software it's illegal to claim someone else's work as your own. It's called a copyright violation and needs no EULA to be enforced. Changing the version reply to say you're using "MY IRC SCRIPT" without mentioning mIRC would be doing just that.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Originally Posted By: argv0

Until then, the "version" of mIRC should always be "mIRC" and Khaled should get his credit where his credit is due.

Keep in mind that even in Open Source Software it's illegal to claim someone else's work as your own. It's called a copyright violation and needs no EULA to be enforced. Changing the version reply to say you're using "MY IRC SCRIPT" without mentioning mIRC would be doing just that.


Notice that I discouraged using the dll to replace the version reply with their own. Yes, that would be wrong, but I don't find anything wrong with stopping the reply altogether. This can already be done by ignoring CTCPs, but I don't want to ignore ALL CTCPs, only certain ones, one of which happens to be version requests. We should already have this option.

Originally Posted By: argv0

Those who don't respect the authors wishes can feel free to write their own client free of all restrictions.


No thanks. I'll just continue to stop version replies altogether with the dll.

Originally Posted By: argv0

I think that settles the official sentiment on the issue, whether it's written in the EULA or not.


Says you, the authority?

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
S
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
S
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Originally Posted By: RusselB
You can not legally hide or alter the default version reply from the mIRC executable. If you do, you are in violation of the EULA.


Yes you can legally hide version replies. The eaiset way would be to ignore all ctcps. this can be done by doing /ignore -t @ this will ignore all ctcps not just version requests. /help /ignore check the -t parameter. so if you rely on ctcp's (i dont know anyone who does) it may be not be good otherwise its a great LEGAL work around

I have no idea why one cant change the version reply!! especially when FREE clients offer that option. It has been requested by users many times and i think its selfish of the mIRC team not even to acknowledge this popular request even in the slightest way.
I personally don't care about my version reply. But it annoys me that a popular request like this one has not even had a tiny hint of acknowledgment especially being people pay for this program.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Sorry but when I said "hide" I meant hide mIRC's reply and show something else. I was not referring to ignoring a version reply altogether.

The fact that something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Copyright theft is indeed very popular nowadays, but that doesn't mean people should be allowed to steal software and music. Do you really think there's any justification for somebody wanting to claim mIRC as their own software? That's what changing a version reply is.. I can't imagine any valid justification for that. Surely nobody deserves to claim authorship of mIRC but Khaled himself.. in that sense- you either show the correct version or you don't show any at all. Sounds fair to me. If you don't like it, use one of your "free" clients.

In the end, Khaled wrote mIRC, you did not. So why should you want to tell people otherwise?


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
This is true for all software. Changing the version information to make it appear to be something else is the same as claiming it's yours outright. People used to (and probably still do) do the same thing with Invision by changing the logo/version reply. It's rather rediculous to do so.


Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 43
D
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
D
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 43
yes there is a way - but it is looked down on apparently from many folks. i myself just add in an extra ctcp reply along with the standard since i wrote my own script

Code:
[VERSION reply]: DragonRyder v5.15 Copyright 2007 :By: DragonRyder Development Team :: Powered by XeroMeM http://www.xeromem.com
[VERSION reply]: mIRC v6.32 Khaled Mardam-Bey

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
T
Pikka bird
Offline
Pikka bird
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
Tbh, i don't see any problem with the last one, so why should people look down on it? lol
It still clearly acknowledges Khaled and mIRC.

However, i do not see any point in changing the whole version reply, to something else... thats just lame.

As some1 said earlier, if you want to be able to change it by using one of the free irc clients, go ahead, their creators obviously don't care. But seemingly Khaled does care, and you should respect his decision, after-all, if he didnt create mIRC, you wouldn't have ever used it, and you wouldn't be here now.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
S
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
S
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Originally Posted By: argv0
Sorry but when I said "hide" I meant hide mIRC's reply and show something else. I was not referring to ignoring a version reply altogether.


So why not have an option to switch off the version reply but not alter it. I think most users who are an favor of CTCP masking do not want to change it to make as if they wrote the client. That is just a ridiculous assumption. They just want to hide it.

Whether its logical to you or not it has been a very popular request in the past and it has been entirely ignored. My criticism really is not so much in the fact that there is no option to hide it, nut in the fact that this issue has not even been addressed in the slightest way by the mIRC team.

As paying users i think we do have the right to make suggestions to what we want in the client. The mIRC team also has the right to say no. But the fact that nothing has been said about it makes me wonder if they care about what we want.

I did not start this topic and at the moment do not care about the CTCP replies etc, but it has come up so many times that i honestly think that something should be said by the MIRC team to stop it once and for all.



Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
If you want an answer from Khaled you should e-mail him directly. You can't ask a question in a random forum on the boards and expect him to be scouring every one to find anything that he might be expected to answer.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
L
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
Why change the reply it doesn't hurt anything even if it's shown what? You want to be elite and not let your friends know your on windows using a win 32 app and pretend your on linux? Why else would you hide the reply, I see many people all over dalnet,efnet etc.. that pretend they are on linux but yet you pop a version reply and they using nothing but mIRC.


Code:
if $reality > $fiction { set %sanity Sane }
Else { echo -a *voices* }
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 22
D
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
D
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 22
Originally Posted By: starbucks_mafia
If you want an answer from Khaled you should e-mail him directly. You can't ask a question in a random forum on the boards and expect him to be scouring every one to find anything that he might be expected to answer.


This is not a random forum it is the official mirc forum. Also it has been brought up a TON of times before and it has been completely ignored. It is not just an oversight why it has not been addressed. Having seen previous posts and snippets of yours i am genuinely surprised and taken aback that someone of your stature would give such a meek reply.

Additionally lpfix5 this is not about whether it is sad to hide a version reply. It is about taking a popular user request seriously. To discuss the IQ level of a user who wants to mask his reply will be changing the thread of the topic.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Yes but it's the scripting forum of the mIRC boards. I'm not sure I've seen Khaled respond to a post in here in 8 years (although to be fair I don't view every one so I can't be sure). Whether he reads any or not I don't know, but asking here means there's a good chance he's simply not going to see it. It has been posted in Feature Suggestions once or twice, at least once in the last year it seems - and typically enough it got out of hand/off-topic as clearly some people feel very strongly about it one way or the other. And frankly I think that's why you probably won't get a direct reply from Khaled on any forum of these boards - from what I've seen he generally tends to avoid confrontational threads (a wise move) which is why I suggested you're better off e-mailing him if you want an answer. Of course Khaled reads the Feature Suggestions forum, so I'm sure he's seen the suggestion before and the fact that he hasn't added the support might be his answer in itself. On the other hand it might be on a todo list.

Personally I've always assumed the reason it was unblockable was on account of the number of repackaged mIRC's you can find that are bundled with scripts that try and pass off the whole thing as their creation, however not so long ago mIRC added the .exe renaming restriction which is a less intrusive means of getting credit where it's due so who knows, maybe suggesting the feature again --either on the boards or via e-mail-- might see different results.

As far as the rest of this thread goes, there's no legal reason why you can't block the version response (EULA or copyright related) so the only reasoning someone might have for not doing it is moral. I don't see any moral reason why you shouldn't block it or even change it if you want, although on the flip-side I don't see any practical reason why you'd want to. To each their own I guess.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028

Is it wrong to change the version reply to report another name or version? Yes, of course it is. That would be very lame. I don't really think anytone here wants to do that. I don't want to change the reply to rIRC v7.19 RoCk, I just simply want to stop it from replying at all, and for no other reason than I don't want to reply. It is sending a message that I don't want sent. This can already be done by ignoring CTCPs, but I don't want to ignore all CTCPs, yes I do use them. We should already have this option. To each their own is exactly right. I suggested a long time ago that an ignore flag be added to ignore version requests, but it went ignored. It could be in the options dialog, select it to ignore version requests, deselect it to unignore.

~ Edit ~
This all also goes for all built-in ctcp replies... version time clientinfo finger ... whatever else there is.


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Quote:
I don't really think anyone here wants to do that.


The problem is that a lot of people do. In fact, (this may be an assumption) it seems to me that it's actually what the OP wants to do.

I have no problem with an ignore option as well, as my posts above state. Ignoring is fine- changing is not. If Khaled is to do anything about this issue, that's what it should be. Problem is, it's probably not the ignoring part that's the "popular" request.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
R
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,028
You're probably right, I'm sure some do want to change it. The thing is, if it were done in a way to only just not reply, then someone could just script their own reply. So it would have to ignore/discard any incoming ctcp version requests. If the user wants block mIRC's version reply, then it's only fair that ALL version requests be ignored imo.

Update: An elegant method for stopping the version reply can be found here.

Last edited by Khaled; 21/05/15 12:47 PM.
I
ifohancroft
Unregistered
ifohancroft
Unregistered
I
I just wanted to add that not everyone using mIRC is pretending to be on Linux laugh
I am on Linux and am using mIRC (via Wine) with a license I purchased at a full price.

#261388 21/09/17 08:43 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,812
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,812
Heh. Way to necro a 9 year old thread smile Welcome to the forums!

I guess while we're here...

Code:
On $*:PARSELINE:in:/^[^:]*:([^!$%]+)!\S+ PRIVMSG \S+ :\x01VERSION\x01$/: {
  var %fakeversion = Not mIRC.
  .parseline -itu0 $regsubex(a,$parseline,/:\x01VERSION\K/,$chr(32) $+ (Blocked by Raccoon.))
  .timerCtcpVersionFloodDelay 1 $r(1,5) ctcpreply $regml(1) VERSION %fakeversion
} ; by Raccoon 2017

Alternately...

Code:
On $*:PARSELINE:in:/^([^:]*:\S+ PRIVMSG \S+ :\x01VERSION)\x01$/i: {
  .parseline -itu0 $regml(1) (Blocked.) $+ $chr(1)
} ; by Raccoon & SReject 2017

CTCP *:VERSION:*: {
  ctcpreply $nick VERSION Not mIRC.
}

Alternately...

Code:
On $*:PARSELINE:out:/^(NOTICE \S+ :\x01VERSION) mIRC/:{
  .parseline -otn $regml(1) Not mIRC. $+ $chr(1)
} ; by SReject 2017

Last edited by Raccoon; 21/09/17 10:49 AM. Reason: Thanks SReject

Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard