If there is a need to fake, the person who owns the bot is most likely some
abuser. If that person is an abuser, we deal with an abusive bot. If a bot
using a non-bot-username is detected while abusing, I guess opers will
quickly take action :o)
The point is not wether to determinate if a bot is
It's an interesting idea--but it requires that the bot identify itself.
I highly doubt we could convince botnet owners to make their bots
identify themselves as bots. It's unfortunate--it would be such a
useful thing :(
I don't see why we couldn't convince them... If you have nothing to hide
How would you tell if they are bots tho? I suppose ctcp checks could be
done but they can be easily faked
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Tom Scott
Sent: Monday, 19 August 2002 3:25 p.m.
To: Kev; Carlo Wood
Cc: Isomer; Dani?l Boeije; [EMA
Maybe we could force them to identify themselves as bots or else we'll kick
them off the network.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kev
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:16 PM
To: Carlo Wood
Cc: Isomer; Dani?l Boeije; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
> Being able to ban bots from channels.
> Only allowing bots to message people who are on the same channel
> (disable PRIVMSG thus, only allowing CPRIVMSG).
> Put a much tighter restriction on (joining/)parting channels,
> for example a maximum of one PART per 20 minutes.
> Not allowing bots to ta
- Original Message -
From: "Carlo Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Isomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dani?l Boeije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Modes for (by example) botservice(s)
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:14:5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 18 Aug 2002 9:22 pm, Tom Scott wrote:
> Yes, but couldn't people just open a client and set +b for someone even
> though they're not a bot?
No, you just make the mode so that it can only be set by a server, the same
as the +k on X
Yes, but couldn't people just open a client and set +b for someone even
though they're not a bot?
We could do what we do with "X" maybe...you could sign up for it, then you'd
have a one-week waiting period while we check the stats of your username.
Finally, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would "Bot" you every
- Plain connect as any client
- Auth to services
- If OK, have services set usermode +B
- Have services transmit privilegdes (for example NOTARGET, NOCHANLIMIT,
NOFLOOD)
(wich are actually the only privilegdes at maximum a botservice should
need to be able to reduce there amounts of bots witho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 18 Aug 2002 1:55 pm, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Disconnect bots that are idling when a server is full and
> a human wants to connect.
I can see that one being unpopular, not to mention possibly exploitable for
channel take overs; vis. if
It shouldn't even be settable by the user himself, it should be set on P10
networks by services for example, botowners would need to get permission to
use this flag, in this way you can also control what a bot can do and what
he can't do. Giving the user himself the ability to use it only leads to
Quote: 'What would you suggest? Perhaps some examples?'
You could maybe build this mode in into X. This way you would be able to
see wich username is taken by a bot. Since we don't want 50.000 bots
connecting to a network (so I guess), you could get an overview. In stead
off the email-adress pro
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:14:50AM +1200, Isomer wrote:
> What would you suggest? Perhaps some examples?
Being able to ban bots from channels.
Only allowing bots to message people who are on the same channel
(disable PRIVMSG thus, only allowing CPRIVMSG).
Put a much tighter restriction on (joini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Dani?l Boeije wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu?
>
> There should be one, its a good idea.
>
> Bots that are spotted and do not use it should
> be kill targets (to moti
>
>On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Daniël Boeije wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu?
>
>There should be one, its a good idea.
>
>This mode should be a user mode that can only
>be set with the USER command (to avoid abuse
>by tricking newbies into using
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Daniël Boeije wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu?
There should be one, its a good idea.
This mode should be a user mode that can only
be set with the USER command (to avoid abuse
by tricking newbies into using it).
Bots tha
Nope. There's only umode +k, which can only be set by services and makes the
client unable to be kicked, killed or deoped.
> Hello,
>
> is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu?
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniël
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.g
Hello,
is there a mode B(Bot) to mark bots in IRCu?
Kind regards,
Daniël
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
