CTCP Version replies and blocking bots

Solutech · Post by **Solutech** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:40 am

I had some trouble from a couple of users using clonesx and flooding out the server . Best thing I found was to locate the original connection and gzline it . That stopped the flood . Bopm helped as he was using proxies and that caught a lot of em.

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:12 pm

aquanight wrote:Huh? All CTCPs use PRIVMSG and NOTICE...

PRIVMSG :\1PING 123\1 - CTCP request

NOTICE :\1PING 123\1 - CTCP reply

In a RAW debug window I get this for VERSION and other CTCP events.

Code: Select all

-> my.irc.server.address.org PRIVMSG nick :VERSION
<- :[email protected] PRIVMSG nick :VERSION
<- :[email protected] NOTICE nick :VERSION mIRC v6.16 Khaled Mardam-Bey

There is no CTCP argument listed, regardless .. mirc allows for total CTCP ignores without hindering DCC, actions, notices or privmsg.

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:43 am

A /me is sent like this:

:w00t PRIVMSG #test :\1ACTION makes toast\1

A version request is:
:w00t PRIVMSG blahbot :\1VERSION\1

(from memory). So all CTCP does is piggyback on top of privmsg, right? Feel free to correct me.

codemastr · Post by **codemastr** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:47 pm

w00t, no, a CTCP request uses PRIVMSG. A CTCP reply uses NOTICE.

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:36 pm

Oh! Thanks, I've only ever looked at the request side of things (never needed to see replies) but I'll file that away for when I do

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:40 am

codemastr wrote:w00t, no, a CTCP request uses PRIVMSG. A CTCP reply uses NOTICE.

Which was shown in my code from my last post

Post by **Syzop** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:53 pm

This thread is getting rather off-topic, I think it can be closed.