Re: BOPM CTCP VERSION Patch

Alternatively you may try the bopm server emulator I
did for my irc network. This way you may use a single
bopm bot to scan the whole network and apply whatever
patches you want to this single bot.
And yes, if your network is too big, like mine is, you
may spread the load between multiple bopm bots running
on multiple mashines.



--- nv <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/