UnrealIRCd Forums

Hmmm . will add this to the spamfilter file and give it a go . All opers are under instructions to version unknown users anyhow and gzline that script on sight . if this will in effect gzline them automatically on version then its gonna make their life easier anyways.

aquanight wrote: It probably won't help this issue, but I think something can/should be added to put a tkl ban on users that don't send a version reply. Something like:

Code: Select all

ban version {
    timelimit 10s;
    action kill /* or tempshun/shun/kline/zline/gline/gzline */ ;
    reason "Network rules require your client to respond normally to a VERSION request.";
};

And that would make the CTCP VERSION exchange part of the user login (with the PING/PONG exchange, DNS lookup, and Ident check).

I just wanted to check to see if this was just a suggestion of if this would really work? I've been looking for a way to keep non-version connections from getting on since I've seen people try to flood rooms with bots that give no version reply.

No it doesn't work. It was just an idea.

I think it's an excellent and useful idea. It would help keep off scripts trying to hide themselves that aren't allowed on somebody's network.

It would also keep out legitimate people like myself who do not reply to version requests.

codemastr wrote:It would also keep out legitimate people like myself who do not reply to version requests.

Somehow, I find it strange that legimate users would break the standard for clients by refusing Version replies: especially since most clients won't let you do this.

(This doesn't work in mIRC:) (It will still send ctcpreply VERSION mIRC x.x blah.)

Plus, most networks I've seen require version replies. Having the ability to ban versionless clients at the ircd would be helpful to those networks because the ones I've seen either use a bot or rely on the opers to handle versionless clients.

Somehow, I find it strange that legimate users would break the standard for clients by refusing Version replies

Break?? standards?? I've never heard of a REQUIREMENT for version replies.

specially since most clients won't let you do this.[..]

Well, fortunately many (if not all) clients let you ignore all CTCPs... which is exactly what I use (/ignore -t * in mIRC), I don't see any need to disclose information on which exact product and version I'm using, what time it is on my computer, etc... codemastr probably has similar reasons and there are a whole lot of others.

Plus, most networks I've seen require version replies.

?? I don't know where you go to then.. I've never been on such a network.

Syzop wrote:

Plus, most networks I've seen require version replies.

?? I don't know where you go to then.. I've never been on such a network.

EFNet comes to my head with this .

Somehow, I find it strange that legimate users would break the standard for clients by refusing Version replies: especially since most clients won't let you do this.

Well CTCP is not a standard. And if you want to call the CTCP specification a standard, mIRC breaks it anyway since it doesn't respond to a CLIENTINFO or USERINFO. And actually, to be honest, mIRC is the only client I've ever seen that forces you to keep the version reply. So I don't know where you got "most" from. Especially on Linux, it's open source, so even if the client doesn't provide a method, you could always do it yourself! And as Syzop pointed out, you can indeed disable all CTCPs in mIRC.

But, not all of us run mIRC. I don't, I run Klient. And it lets you hide the version reply no problem. I just uncheck the little checkbox next to "Version" and *poof* disabled. And as Syzop indicated, there are legitimate reasons to block it. I block it because I'm beta testing the next release Klient and I hate that people version me and then ask me to send them the beta version. So rather than deal with them, it's easier to just turn off version replies.

Plus, most networks I've seen require version replies.

Such as? I can connect to DALnet, EFnet, Undernet, IRCnet, and Quakenet without responding to version replies. I've yet to try to connect to a single server that banned me because I didn't reply to a version request.

EFNet comes to my head with this

EFnet *requests* a version reply, it doesn't *require* it.
[01:12] CTCP VERSION from: B-Drone ([email protected])
[01:12] Response disabled in CTCP options, not responding
I wasn't disconnected. I can do everything a user who replies to a version can.