OpCom script feature

[qqzm]

Random feature idea:

When a user uses the +regme command, request his/her filelist and:

1) If using dc++ and reports no slots, kick the user.
2) If using nmdc and reports no slots send a message to the user saying you need to have a slot open to use that command.
3) If you get the filelist, check the size matches the reported share size, and check for user definied banned files (such as msimn.exe etc. to check they aren't sharing program files or windows directories), and a list of banned words. If the filelist checks out, register the user. If it doesn't, kick the user and (optionallly) send a message to the ops saying why the user was rejected.

Comments on how feasible/reliable/sensible/edible this would be?

[yakko]

1) it'd have to be configurable. My hub is a private hub and has no min share
2) I think there's a plugin now that does this or similar stuff.
3) I think the message to the ops is a better idea, I like to double check before a kick.

[qqzm]

1) it'd have to be configurable. My hub is a private hub and has no min share
2) I think there's a plugin now that does this or similar stuff.
3) I think the message to the ops is a better idea, I like to double check before a kick.

1) It wouldn't do anything with min shares. It would only check that the file list size matches the reported size.

2) I've seen scripts for other hub software that do a similar check of the filelist everytime a user logs into the hub. My suggestion involves checking the filelist only when the user is regged, which would mean a lot lower bandwidth usage for the check. Also, an OP would not need to be around to check a user out manually when he/she wishes to register. Combine this with the Restictions plugin and you can have it set so that anybody can enter your hub, but that they must be registered in order to search etc. and to register, they must have their filelist checked by the bot.

3) This could easily be a setting for action to take e.g.: message ops/kick/full ban for x time etc.

[yakko]

I think I see what you're trying to do. I was confused earlier. After the last post I can see the benefits of a script like this.

[Sedulus]

Comments on how feasible/reliable/sensible/edible this would be?

hm.. not very

feasible/sensible: this will require socket interaction, which _is_ possible, but it'd be better to use an external client for this. this way you could use (1) a different computer (lighten cpu load), (2) a different IP (block smart fakers). also, it's not really something that belongs to the original opcom plugin. if it were implemented, it'd be in a different plugin. also, the +regme would have to stall, the way you propose it. this is impossible, so the check would have to come after.

reliable: the faker could register himself first, and then start faking. so it's definately not fool-proof

edible: *hmm* tasty fried chicked :D


I suggest you use a fakeshare checker like dc++k instead. client-side bots rule :)