mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
DCC2 #80604 25/04/04 05:03 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
S
seanmcelroy Offline OP
Mostly harmless
OP Offline
Mostly harmless
S
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Are there any plans for mIRC to support DCC2? See http://dcc2.org for the working group -- some major clients have joined the effort, so I'd like to know if mIRC will be on the boat too.

-Sean

Re: DCC2 #80605 26/04/04 12:26 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Well I only took a brief look at it, here's my thoughts.

It would be nice for a DCC protocol with increased connectivity, security, and stability, however I really wish it didn't include the ability to send multiple files. For 99% of legitimate usage single-file sends were perfectly acceptable, something like this only serves to increase the misuse of IRC as a carrier for a filesharing protocol and ultimately hurts all of IRC (the chatting part anyway) by deterring server sponsors who fear lawsuits from overzealous IP (intellectual property) holders (RIAA, BPI, et al.) and could very well lead to the future closure of servers by those organisations. So far the use of DCC in IRC has been so pathetically unstable and inefficient that it's been mostly overlooked, that won't last long if people continue to try and push 'features' into IRC that further it as a filesharing tool.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: DCC2 #80606 26/04/04 04:59 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
I couldn't have said it better.

And as it stands, DCC is its own protocol and pretty much limited to the confines of IRC use. In the past, people have attempted such things as FTP to DCC gateways, with some success, but overall without event or change to IRC culture. I'm afraid that such a change to DCC will make IRC clients "Peer To Peer Ready" and, as you said, the target of media rights giants.

Internet Relay Chat is just that.


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: DCC2 #80607 26/04/04 06:05 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 428
P
PastMaster Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
P
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 428
Agree completely with both this and Raccoon's reply.

PM


IRCnet & DALnet @#travelersinn
:-: IRC for fun and relaxation :-:
Re: DCC2 #80608 26/04/04 07:02 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Mentality Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
"The main goal of our negotiation draft is to identify connections that are more likely to be established. The second goal is to allow the clients to know exactly why a connection failed, instead of a silent failure"

I think this is great - DCC questions are constantly asked, and are hard to deal with due to the reasonably large number of problems that can interrupt DCC connections occuring. An advance on the information fed back to the clients on exactly why it fails would be a huge plus in my mind.

I haven't read into detail about this, however, they seem to be trying to improve file transferring to make it faster and better - basically, make it more advanced. Does this not go against the whole idea of the DCC protocol not being the best one for file transferring, and IRC not being the best medium for it? Or am I just being dumb and haven't read enough into it yet?

I know my views on file sharing via IRC are a little (ok, a lot) stronger than others....but that is my opinion and it's not going to change. I think if people are wanting to use IRC to swap files legitimately, then what there already is is fine, although as I said, I think error feedback advancement would be a nice idea.

In my view, advancing upon the file transferring abilities of the DCC protocol is unnecessary.

The whole thing is certainly something to keep an eye on though, and I'm with mIRC whatever decision is made..provided it's the one I agree with <G>

Regards,


Mentality/Chris
Re: DCC2 #80609 26/04/04 12:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,831
I
Iori Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
I
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,831
LOL That's a rather verbose "I'm gonna sit on the fence!" post laugh

Re: DCC2 #80610 26/04/04 12:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Mentality Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
lol, I didn't mean it to be like that....

However, I am more on the side of not supporting this, simply due to the file sharing advancement. If Khaled did decide to join up for it though, I'm not going to leave mIRC or stop helping here etc. but I wouldn't be over the moon about the decision.

My 2 cents again!

Regards,


Mentality/Chris
Re: DCC2 #80611 26/04/04 03:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
I think with a little effort, Khaled could add passive error detection for both the sender and the receiver, and even issue a /notice to the other party with what mIRC thinks has happened.

Here are some examples:

[*] Sender's is connecting from a local network, and the client didn't look up their internet IP address, so it sends 192.168.0.2 in the DCC Send/Chat request. The receiver's client should automatically detect that a reserved (invalid) IP address was sent, and /notice the requesting client this fact.
"Sender's client is misconfigured; does not know its own internet address. Try typing: /localinfo -u"

[*] Sender is connecting from a local network, and isn't forwarding their DCC ports correctly. The receiving client could /notify the sender that "Unable to get file from you at 123.123.123.123 port 4000; Connection Refused. Please open your ports!"

[*] Receiving client has filetype ignore enabled. It should notify the sender via /notice that "Sorry, I am not accepting files of this type. See: /help DCC Ignore"

These basic error responses can save Senders and Receivers a lot of trouble and debugging, and can be accomplished with existing DCC protocol. A 10 second flood prevention delay can be added, just like CTCP VERSION, so these /notice responses cannot be abused. mIRC can even display "Type: /HELP DCC Problems for assistance." locally, when a known error message is sent or received.

Put simply, DCC protocol does not need to be revamped... at least not for the sake of error detection and correction. (I'm pretty sure you agree on this point already; just for other readers.)

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: DCC2 #80612 27/04/04 05:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Mentality Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
Hope this isn't considered spamming or anything *hides* but for those looking at this thread for information about this DCC2 protocol project thing, you might like to know I posted an article here with the views of some of the current DCC2 members on a few questions I thought up.

Happy suggestin' smile

Regards,


Mentality/Chris
Re: DCC2 #80613 27/04/04 06:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 325
W
Wolfie Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
W
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 325
You already stated that you are not in favor of DCC2 for mIRC.. Just thought I'd add in support for being against DCC2 in mIRC.

Not only for the valid fear that IRC would turn into a community of file tradings and would eventually become the downfall of it, but for the simple fact that there are many other concepts/ideas that could be developed to aid with data communication between people and better integration with new IRC's as they come out.

There have been times when I have wanted to send multiple files at one time - from me to myself (another computer in the house), and I use a home IRC to get that going. I select multiple files, fill up my little mirc "taskbar" with DCC's, and transfer files in less than half the time than if I had used AIM, Windows Explorer, FTP, etc. But other than that, with all the other file sharing communities out there, there is no need to develop other DCC's to make it easier to turn IRC into one of them.

I would much rather see something developed that is similar to DCC chat/send where it would be for brief data exchange, such as scripts being able to share data, without having to break down the method of transfer (to avoid flooding) but also without having to worry about possible connection problems due to firewalls and the like. But then again, I haven't tried looking for scripts that already do this to try to assimilate their methods, as I don't need it just yet.

grin

Re: DCC2 #80614 27/04/04 06:38 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Rounin Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
As far as I can see it's quite obvious that at least one client is planning to add support for DCC 2 in the not too distant future, and that if it becomes a success, users are prone to switch to those clients, and other clients are prone to follow. So what hapens to the protocol is probably not something mIRC alone can regulate.

As for filesharing being the downfall of IRC, you'll have to explain further why you think that is. The Internet itself has a structure that facilitates filesharing, and it's quite natural that the overlaying protocols come to do the same thing. If IRC should become the subject of a controversy because of its filesharing facilities, how exactly would that hurt chat communities? I've yet to see users steer away from a technical implementation to avoid its filesharing capabilities.

Re: DCC2 #80615 27/04/04 06:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Quote:
If IRC should become the subject of a controversy because of its filesharing facilities, how exactly would that hurt chat communities?

- Read my post above.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: DCC2 #80616 27/04/04 06:59 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Rounin Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
It's a good argument, but then again, it presents another question, namely why aren't we removing the support for DCC altogether? After all, DCC 1, and not DCC 2, is responsible for IRC's popularity as a filesharing protocol. I don't see how DCC 2 would alter that substantially.

Re: DCC2 #80617 27/04/04 07:25 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Mentality Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
Quote:

why aren't we removing the support for DCC altogether?


Well it's not down to mIRC to remove the entire DCC protocol altogether as I'm sure you know, and actual DCC is very useful - I use it all the time to get script files, pictures (especially in 'holiday' times such as Christmas/New years etc.) and an assortment of other legitimate files. Personally, I'd be happy to see the FServe feature go tommorow but I also know many people use that legitimately too and it would be unfair on them.

Quote:

I don't see how DCC 2 would alter that substantially.


I haven't read into it substantially, but the main thing that sticks out in the DCC2 protocol is that you can send multiple files at the same time. Now, mIRC already has a feature where you can send multiple DCC send requests at the same time - however, they are separate. If this DCC2 thing had the ability to send 10 or so files in ONE DCC send, this would be a vast improvement for illegal file traders.

True to say that the current DCC protocol still seems to provide all their needs, but it cannot be denied that the current DCC is not the best for file serving, it's not as stable or smooth-running as other programs such as 'Kazaa' or 'iMesh'. It does however provide a good way for people to get pictures, the odd music file from a friend etc. - this is what I believe DCC was designed for. There is no need to improve upon it as it does this successfully (At least in my own experience). If it's not broke, don't fix it as they say.

Regards,


Mentality/Chris
Re: DCC2 #80618 27/04/04 07:51 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Rounin Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
Hm, yes, you're right! Well, I think I'll join you in the sitting on the fence department until DCC 2 actually emerges as something concrete smile

Re: DCC2 #80619 28/04/04 03:08 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,642
Quote:
As for filesharing being the downfall of IRC, you'll have to explain further why you think that is. The Internet itself has a structure that facilitates filesharing, and it's quite natural that the overlaying protocols come to do the same thing.

You are incorrect sir, and I will explain why.

The internet was created to facilitate the exchange of text communications decades ago, and even today, its most underlying protocols only utilize 7 bit data exchange. This can be seen as files have to be wrapped into 7 bit containers before they can be posted over email or news, or sent along with 7 bit header information explaining what to do with the 8 bit chunks about to be transfered.

IRC was created as a medium for the exchange of thought and ideas, not of files. Just as radio and television broadcast were initially created to exchange the same, they have now become portals of entertainment and fragmented thoughts and short attention spans. You might say that media was the downfall of television and radio, and as such, media will be the downfall of IRC.

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: DCC2 #80620 28/04/04 03:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Rounin Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
To address your first point, text files are files, and whether 7-bit or binary, what files do is indeed tranferring thoughts and ideas. Whether that's done via text or via other forms of information isn't really relevant in that context.

As for your second argument, I don't believe this discussion was meant to address the issue of people's attention spans or the real or imagined decadence of society in general.

Re: DCC2 #80621 28/04/04 04:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 325
W
Wolfie Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
W
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 325
Quote:
IRC was created as a medium for the exchange of thought and ideas, not of files. Just as radio and television broadcast were initially created to exchange the same, they have now become portals of entertainment and fragmented thoughts and short attention spans. You might say that media was the downfall of television and radio, and as such, media will be the downfall of IRC.
Sorry.. Your message was more than 2 sentences long.. I couldn't read it all, my attention span doesn't last that long.
grin
Honestly, it is a good point... What were we talking about again? (just kidding)