On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 18:41 +0000, Robin Cloutman wrote: > Ian Kumlien wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 02:22 +0000, Robin Cloutman wrote: > >>Ian Kumlien wrote: > >>>On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 16:55 +0000, Robin Cloutman wrote: > [snip > >>>Anyways, mirc and other brain dead irc client implementations uses all > >>>ports *including* <1024 that is defined as reserved for services. Thus, > >>>whatever it is that trues to dcc to you sucks. > >> > >>*Except* that amirc doesn't care what port it's using, or even if it's a > >>bad IP - so long as it's got the right format amirc will sit there like > >>a lemon trying to connect! > > > > I really really really doubt it, test it to prove me wrong =). > > Heh, you of all people should know about writing a plugin to tell you > about bad values being passed in a dcc send (ip ranges and/or port > numbers)... Yep, did that for xchat since it lacked it. And as i said i'm pretty confident that amirc has checks for low port numbers, i would actually be very surprised if it lacked it... mIRC and other ppl inspired by mirc seem to lack the "what source port i can use" clue... =P
> Hrm... how about a ctcp-send protocol, bet the server admins would kill > me though ;-P Well, dcc is a ctcp, ie it starts and ends with \001. > Robin -- Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- -- File: signature.asc -- Desc: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCQb5V7F3Euyc51N8RAqkYAKCM2bVkpLaZdia4OqTR80UUw2xvMQCfZnXn 0kds6ZKwdrrmbuzttxHedDE= =UpVM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
