NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/irc/4081

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-12 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.irc:4081 alt.irc.ircii:170
Path: sparky!uunet!know!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!sal.wisc.edu!rat!zeus!hertz.elee.calpoly.edu!asamonte
From: [e-mail] (Just some loser...)
Newsgroups: alt.irc,alt.irc.ircii
Subject: Re: Bots, WarBots, Fun?
Keywords: bots, are, lame.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:40:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Nothing worth mentioning...
Lines: 69

[e-mail] (-=Runaway Daemon=-) was telling me...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt Hucke) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman H. Fredriksson) writes:
>>>/on public "* *re*" say say hi, Glurg;say say hi, Glurg
>>What does this prove?  It's a "piece of shit" because it can be placed in an
>>infinite loop by any malicious person?  That can be done with almost any
>>program... I once had a shell reading from and writing to the same file,
>
>This is not true.  Any GOOD bot can easily detect when it is the victim of
>malicious intent.  The point which herm didn't point out probably because
>he figured you'd be bright enough to figure it out yourself is that if some
>other smuck has a bot with similiar functions also left unattended and your
>bot wanders in, (you did say it wandered), then it's conceivable that the
>two bots will get stuck in a loop.  In fact, this happens all the time on
>#botsex and #bottub where the endless   on kick rejoin kick etcetc..
>bullshit goes on.

Actually, I think it's more like any good bot programmer.

>There are just too many people out there that don't have a clue as to what
>they are doing when they run a bot.  And MOST of them never even bother
>to figure out what everything in their bot does.  I could probably
>write up some spiffy bot code, give it to any number of random ijuts
>and be able to do with them or their accounts as I please.  They wouldn't
>even know what hit em.  What's really scary is they would give it to
>someone else without realizing how dangerous it was.

You're probably right.


>About now you should be jumping in about how we need alt.irc.bots, (another
>newgroup that 50% of the sites will ignore), so that people can learn how
>to write good bots.  Well, I say, that's just bullshit.  It would become
>a forum for posting your favorite bot code, and very little real understanding
>going on.  If you want to learn how to write a bot then learn how the
>client works first.  I think I can probably count the number of people
>that have read all the ircII help files on my fingers.  I know count count the
>number of people who would be willing to write a bot in perl instead of
>ircII script, on my toes.  And god forbid someone might write a bot in C
>instead.  Hell, they might actually learn something.

I did...It was one of my first C programs I wrote.  Dunno perl...but maybe
I will someday...As for the help files...i read them...and they
suck.  They should be rewritten.

>There's been a lot of "it could be this way, or it might be that way" but
>all I see day in and day out is how it IS, and how it WILL be.. people are
>lazy, and I'd rather not see another 500 unatteded flooding bots by lazy
>owners with big egos on lame channels.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I see a few people spouting the need for
programming help...but what you don't see is the untold number of people
who will just copy code and have a few bazillion (slight exaggeration)
CloneBots running within days.  And then having every other day
someone post saying 'SEnD me UR k-k00l B0t c0DE d00dZ!!1!!!'


>Ooooo.. if you're feeling really manly, you can whip out those flames and
>show us what you got.
>
>    ian   (Coming down from 2 weeks of 5-3 B+Trees.)

I'm just about to start writing one now...Ugh...

Wanna SEnD mE UR k-k00l C0De, d00d?

<grin>

-Alex