make bot ctcp anyone

[Dedan]

I have been trying to get the bot to
ctcp a message to a nick for the last 2 hours

I thought this would do it:

putserv "ctcp $nick :newmessage"

so, what is the sceret?

thanks for any help given

[strikelight]

I have been trying to get the bot to
ctcp a message to a nick for the last 2 hours

I thought this would do it:

putserv "ctcp $nick :newmessage"

so, what is the sceret?

thanks for any help given

CTCP's are actually a client program invention (probably mIRC), which are really regular private messages (PRIVMSG's)...

putserv "PRIVMSG $nick :\001<ctcp query>\001"

should do the trick for you.

[Dedan]

that's closer ... i am getting something back.

I am trying to add a extra version reply
to the regular one ... i want 2 replies
to be sent to the person who versions the bot.

the problem with the above code is that it
cuts off the 2nd word between the \001 \001's

I get:
[porah VERSION] reply

instead of:
[porah VERSION reply]:

I tried:

putserv "PRIVMSG $nick :\001VERSION reply\001 Addon: BotServ v1.1"

and:

set vreply "VERSION reply"
putserv "PRIVMSG $nick :\001$vreply\001 Addon: BotServ v1.1"


also tryied these, i listed their returns under the script:

putserv "NOTICE $nick :\001VERSION \003reply\001 Addon: BotServ v1.1"
[porah VERSION reply]: reply


putserv "NOTICE $nick :\001VERSION \reply : Addon: BotServ v1.1\001"
[porah VERSION reply]


putserv "NOTICE $nick :\001VERSION \reply\001\001: Addon: BotServ v1.1\001"
[porah VERSION reply]

any ideas?

[ppslim]

Use PRIVMSG for the CTCP query portion, and NOTICE for the CTCP reply.

The format should be

putserv "NOTICE $nick :\001VERSION Addon: BotServ v1.1\001"

As for the origin of CTCP, nope, this wasn't a mIRC contraption.

It was invented as a method of automating / program a client to relact on somthing, exactly as it does for VERSIon and even DCC.

As such, allmost every script should be written to react through CTCP, however,t hat would be too easy and who follows a standard anyhow.

[Dedan]

putserv "NOTICE $nick :\001VERSION Addon: BotServ v1.1\001"
returns
[Zipporah VERSION reply]: Addon: BotServ v1.1

is there anyway to drop the 2nd ":" ?

[Dedan]

I don't know what i did the first few times
but i got it now ...
thanks for the help ppslim

[strikelight]

As for the origin of CTCP, nope, this wasn't a mIRC contraption.

It was invented as a method of automating / program a client to relact on somthing, exactly as it does for VERSIon and even DCC.

As such, allmost every script should be written to react through CTCP, however,t hat would be too easy and who follows a standard anyhow.

It's hard to follow a "standard" when it was never originally standardized in the original RFC's...

When IRC was first created, as you can guess, CTCP wouldn't have even been a concept yet... No real need for it... As such, I suspect it would have been the earliest client program to introduce it, most likely ircII ...

You can tell that it is an after thought, implemented initially by a client program, as it uses 'PRIVMSG' and 'NOTICE' in it's protocol, instead of having it's very own seperate command.

[ppslim]

Using PRIVMSG and NOTICE is pretty efficient.

The machanism is allready defined and clients need no changes to support it.

All RFC are only drafts. They are not standards, however, in most cases, they are followed as a official due to the ready available source.

IRC uses a barebones structure and has very few commands. Most of the commands that do exist are for server maintainance or administration.

Adding new commands for CTCP would have been like producing a whole new HTTP protocol just for dealing with encrypted trafic.

Instead, they used an existing layer available, and channeled it over encrypted links instead.

[strikelight]

Using PRIVMSG and NOTICE is pretty efficient.

The machanism is allready defined and clients need no changes to support it.

All RFC are only drafts. They are not standards, however, in most cases, they are followed as a official due to the ready available source.

IRC uses a barebones structure and has very few commands. Most of the commands that do exist are for server maintainance or administration.

Adding new commands for CTCP would have been like producing a whole new HTTP protocol just for dealing with encrypted trafic.

Instead, they used an existing layer available, and channeled it over encrypted links instead.

The point is, it WAS infact added as an after-thought, which you just stated yourself.

QED.