PtokaX forum

PtokaX => Feature Proposals => Topic started by: PPK on 16 December, 2007, 01:49:15

Title: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 16 December, 2007, 01:49:15
Code: [Select]
-- Block of clients with buggy supports
-- Created for fun and to force client creators to fix bug caused by bad quack coding.

function SupportsArrival(curUser, sData)
    if string.sub(sData, string.len(sData)-1, string.len(sData)-1) == " " then
        Core.SendToUser(curUser, "<"..Core.GetHubSecAlias().."> Your client is buggy and sent bad $Supports command.")
        Core.SendToUser(curUser, "<"..Core.GetHubSecAlias().."> Please report that bug to your client creator and wait for fixed version.")
        Core.SendToUser(curUser, "<"..Core.GetHubSecAlias().."> If you don't want to wait or your client creator is not able to fix that bug then please change client.")
Core.Disconnect(curUser)
    end
end
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 16 December, 2007, 13:06:11
Yes, but not in a hardcoded way. Or at least not for the first time. :P
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: CrazyGuy on 16 December, 2007, 13:48:55
May i suggest a Core.Kick instead of a Core.Disconnect to avoid hammering ?  ::)
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 16 December, 2007, 14:01:34
May i suggest a Core.Kick instead of a Core.Disconnect to avoid hammering ?  ::)

I object; hammering will lead to autoban anyway. And kicking would disappoint the user too much IMHO.
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: CrazyGuy on 16 December, 2007, 19:33:02
I object; hammering will lead to autoban anyway. And kicking would disappoint the user too much IMHO.

i don't really see why kicking would disappoint more than an autoban for hammering
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: Tw?sT?d-d?v on 16 December, 2007, 19:35:43
If kicking doesnt that mean user has to be in hub ... therefore defeting the object
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: ruler on 16 December, 2007, 22:16:14
i voted 'yes' but thats because i'd like to see the back of all dodgy clients  ;D
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: TTB on 17 December, 2007, 10:08:01
Voted: Only as option with default enabled.

I don't know which clients has buggy supports. The hub-runner should manage it if needed, imo.
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: Thor on 17 December, 2007, 12:58:37
The only one client which sends corrupted $Supports string is rmDC.
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 17 December, 2007, 13:09:32
No, it is not only one client :P But yes this script block rmDC++ too 8)
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 05 January, 2008, 22:59:00
36.8% for yes, 36.8% for option with enabled, 26.3% for option with disabled.

Who really test that script ? Why nobody complains that this script blocking DC++ and most of DC++ modifications ? Who really want to block them ? ;D
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 05 January, 2008, 23:39:05
Tag is optional because it is not part of protocol, it is ugly description hack by quack.

This block is question, because that bug is in most actually used clients ::)
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: CrazyGuy on 06 January, 2008, 11:07:17
36.8% for yes, 36.8% for option with enabled, 26.3% for option with disabled.

Who really test that script ? Why nobody complains that this script blocking DC++ and most of DC++ modifications ? Who really want to block them ? ;D

I haven't tested that script, but I can see pretty clearly what it does  :P
As Mutor said, the question asked in the poll is taken as stand-alone.

I would encourage such a block as default if it wasn't that it would mean so many current clients will not be allowed in because of it  ;)
Therefor I'm sticking with my vote of making it optional
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 04 July, 2008, 16:06:51
Voting locked, will be implemented in next PtokaX version as option with default enabled  8)
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: CrazyGuy on 04 July, 2008, 21:20:07
good  ;D
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: ATAG on 12 October, 2008, 23:57:22
Voting locked, will be implemented in next PtokaX version as option with default enabled  8)
How can i disable it?  :o
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: ATAG on 13 October, 2008, 01:09:16
Then what is "Bad $Supports from <unknown> (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) - user closed." in the log?
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 13 October, 2008, 01:36:20
Then what is "Bad $Supports from <unknown> (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) - user closed." in the log?
That is rmDC++, client sending more buggy supports that this block will disallow ::)
Title: Re: Clients with buggy supports block
Post by: PPK on 19 November, 2011, 17:54:42
It is funny but dc++ devs again shown that they are bunch of idiots. Not only that they are not able to correctly code things as it is documented by them (http://neisep.com/dc/index.php?title=$Supports), but they are not able to fix bugs they created... https://answers.launchpad.net/dcplusplus/+question/179023  ;D