Re: BOPM CTCP VERSION Patch
nv <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.irc.bopm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello, Thanks for the reply... I have tried all the Options but none of them seems to work with the IRCd (Austhex) At the moment, I have 2 Options, I could code a bot in perl, Which I am thinking of doing...Or Set the BOPM to do it. That is the main reason I was interested in the BOPM's Patch. Because, The BOPM's work fine and If we could let it scan for CTCP Versions, it will cut down a lot of work and Time rather than Deploying a Bot on every server... The IRCd doesn't support remote traffic monitor for Opers So, a bot has to be placed on every single server...which is kinda pain on the neck... Thanks tabris wrote: >On Saturday 05 March 2005 10:28 am, nv wrote: > > >>Hello, >>I have been going through the BOPM Mailing list and found out there >>is a CTCP Version Patch which CTCP the clients when connect and >>match/kline them. I couldn't find the patch anywhere...Any Idea where >>I can find it? >> >> > I'd think you'd be better off just having something like NeoStats >SecureServ. or Unreal's SpamFilter (you still have to send a CTCP >request). > > Or just code your own regexp bot in Perl. a socketbot coded in perl >isn't too hard to do really. and it'll be a) easier to test b) easier >to code. > > I have a feeling that this kind of thing might qualify as freeping >creaturism. When I go on a service call I don't normally bring a >combination blowtorch/screwdriver/knife/pliers/coping-saw. >Just the screwdriver and pliers will be fine, and if I need the >blowtorch I'll get it from my vehicle ;). > > Simplicity is the UNIX way. Maybe what we need (I have a >developer/friend who would agree even) is an extensible framework, like >NeoStats (tho I'd prefer something better), that you can insert various >kinds of modules into. > > Thus you have both simplicity (modular) while not 20 separate bots >either, as some ppl seem to want. > > I'd suggest SurrealServices core-code but it's in perl which not >everyone would appreciate. Hopefully we'll have time to make a C >version, later. > > If anyone DOES want to see SurrealServices, I'll reply with a link. > > >>http://lists.blitzed.org/pipermail/bopm/2003-February/000976.html >>http://lists.blitzed.org/pipermail/bopm/2003-February/000975.html >> >>Thanks >> >> > > >