mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: AWEstun] #200117 28/05/08 02:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 43
D
DragonRyder Offline
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

Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: DragonRyder] #200135 28/05/08 10:30 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18
T
TTSpazmo Offline
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.

Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: TTSpazmo] #200153 29/05/08 10:26 AM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 139
S
Solo1 Offline
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.



Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: Solo1] #200163 29/05/08 02:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
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.
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: starbucks_mafia] #200179 29/05/08 03:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,052
L
Lpfix5 Offline
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* }
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: starbucks_mafia] #200182 29/05/08 05:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 22
D
dassa Offline
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.

Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: dassa] #200192 29/05/08 06:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
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.
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: dassa] #200199 29/05/08 07:17 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,021
R
RoCk Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,021

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.


Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: RoCk] #200200 29/05/08 07:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
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"
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: argv0] #200203 29/05/08 07:43 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,021
R
RoCk Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,021
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.
Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: Lpfix5] #261386 20/09/17 05:30 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.

Re: CTCP VERSION Masking [Re: ] #261388 21/09/17 08:43 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,690
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,690
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 2 of 2 1 2