Author Topic: Clients with buggy supports block  (Read 22521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Clients with buggy supports block
« 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
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

PtokaX forum

Clients with buggy supports block
« on: 16 December, 2007, 01:49:15 »

Offline bastya_elvtars

  • Forum God
  • ****
  • Posts: 3 725
  • Karma: +173/-7
  • The rock n' roll doctor
    • The FreshStuff3 Site
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #1 on: 16 December, 2007, 13:06:11 »
Yes, but not in a hardcoded way. Or at least not for the first time. :P
Everything could have been anything else and it would have just as much meaning.

Offline CrazyGuy

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +83/-20
    • ?????=-_The NightHawk_-=?????
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #2 on: 16 December, 2007, 13:48:55 »
May i suggest a Core.Kick instead of a Core.Disconnect to avoid hammering ?  ::)

Offline bastya_elvtars

  • Forum God
  • ****
  • Posts: 3 725
  • Karma: +173/-7
  • The rock n' roll doctor
    • The FreshStuff3 Site
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #3 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.
Everything could have been anything else and it would have just as much meaning.

Offline CrazyGuy

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +83/-20
    • ?????=-_The NightHawk_-=?????
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #4 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

Offline Tw?sT?d-d?v

  • Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
  • Karma: +79/-2
    • EURO-OP
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #5 on: 16 December, 2007, 19:35:43 »
If kicking doesnt that mean user has to be in hub ... therefore defeting the object

Offline ruler

  • Triple Ace
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +7/-2
    • DCHubAd
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #6 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

Offline TTB

  • Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
  • Karma: +17/-1
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #7 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.
TTB

(? ?.??.-> Admin @ Surfnet hubs <-.??.???)

Offline Thor

  • Scripter
  • Lord
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +45/-5
    • Hungarian Direct Connect Site
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #8 on: 17 December, 2007, 12:58:37 »
The only one client which sends corrupted $Supports string is rmDC.

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #9 on: 17 December, 2007, 13:09:32 »
No, it is not only one client :P But yes this script block rmDC++ too 8)
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #10 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
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #11 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 ::)
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Offline CrazyGuy

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +83/-20
    • ?????=-_The NightHawk_-=?????
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #12 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 American Idiot 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

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #13 on: 04 July, 2008, 16:06:51 »
Voting locked, will be implemented in next PtokaX version as option with default enabled  8)
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Offline CrazyGuy

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +83/-20
    • ?????=-_The NightHawk_-=?????
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #14 on: 04 July, 2008, 21:20:07 »
good  ;D

Offline ATAG

  • Scripter
  • Double Ace
  • ******
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +14/-0
  • secret things
    • Metin2 Hungarian Forum
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #15 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

Offline ATAG

  • Scripter
  • Double Ace
  • ******
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +14/-0
  • secret things
    • Metin2 Hungarian Forum
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #16 on: 13 October, 2008, 01:09:16 »
Then what is "Bad $Supports from <unknown> (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) - user closed." in the log?

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #17 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 ::)
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Offline PPK

  • Administrator
  • Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 475
  • Karma: +209/-22
  • PtokaX developer
Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #18 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, but they are not able to fix bugs they created... https://answers.launchpad.net/dcplusplus/+question/179023  ;D
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

PtokaX forum

Re: Clients with buggy supports block
« Reply #18 on: 19 November, 2011, 17:54:42 »