Forums Scripts & Popups CTCP VERSION Masking

Is there a way to mask the CTCP VERSION that mIRC returns?

No.

-genius_at_work

Well, that isn't no fun!

Yes there's a way.
.
.
..

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

Yes.

LoL everytime I post a dll i get told off by other ops

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.

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

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.

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.

Well you shouldn't use this for that purpose.

yes.. and without use of dlls... you can change version reply using /debug...

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.

I'll double check the EULA

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.

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.


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


Says you, the authority?

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.

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?

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.