Clients with buggy supports block
 

News:

11 April 2017 - PtokaX 0.5.2.2 released...
8 April 2015 Anti child and anti pedo pr0n scripts are not allowed anymore on this board!
28 September 2015 - PtokaX 0.5.2.1 for Windows 10 IoT released...
3 September 2015 - PtokaX 0.5.2.1 released...
16 August 2015 - PtokaX 0.5.2.0 released...
1 August 2015 - Crowdfunding for ADC protocol support in PtokaX ended. Clearly nobody want ADC support...
30 June 2015 - PtokaX 0.5.1.0 released...
30 April 2015 Crowdfunding for ADC protocol support in PtokaX
26 April 2015 New support hub!
20 February 2015 - PtokaX 0.5.0.3 released...
13 April 2014 - PtokaX 0.5.0.2 released...
23 March 2014 - PtokaX testing version 0.5.0.1 build 454 is available.
04 March 2014 - PtokaX.org sites were temporary down because of DDOS attacks and issues with hosting service provider.

Main Menu

Clients with buggy supports block

Started by PPK, 16 December, 2007, 01:49:15

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PPK

-- 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

bastya_elvtars

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.

CrazyGuy

May i suggest a Core.Kick instead of a Core.Disconnect to avoid hammering ?  ::)

bastya_elvtars

Quote from: CrazyGuy on 16 December, 2007, 13:48:55
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.

CrazyGuy

Quote from: bastya_elvtars on 16 December, 2007, 14:01:34
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

Tw?sT?d-d?v

If kicking doesnt that mean user has to be in hub ... therefore defeting the object

ruler

i voted 'yes' but thats because i'd like to see the back of all dodgy clients  ;D

The Direct Connect Global Banlist get protected.

TTB

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 <-.??.???)

Thor

The only one client which sends corrupted $Supports string is rmDC.

PPK

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

PPK

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

PPK

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

CrazyGuy

Quote from: 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

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

PPK

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

CrazyGuy


ATAG

Quote from: PPK on 04 July, 2008, 16:06:51
Voting locked, will be implemented in next PtokaX version as option with default enabled  8)
How can i disable it?  :o

ATAG

Then what is "Bad $Supports from <unknown> (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) - user closed." in the log?

PPK

Quote from: ATAG on 13 October, 2008, 01:09:16
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

PPK

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

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk