Eggdev: The state of eggdrop1.9

Will Buckner wcc at
Fri May 11 20:47:19 CST 2007

Sven Trenkel wrote:
> Hi eggdev,
> looks like the mail server is working again, yeay for that.
> The oldbotnet support for eggdrop1.9 is now kinda complete. "Kinda"
> means that everything that is not related to (user)file transfers and
> sharing is supported and those things will never be, because it just
> doesn't work, the data that has to be shared is just too different. some
> things, like .modules and .who is only supported for relay, if the bot
> itself is the target, it only triggers a bind no one is listening to at
> the moment. On the bright side, that means it makes no difference if the
> command was done by a local or a remote user once the bind is implemented.

Great work! I've been watching the commit logs... Great to know people 
are still interested :)
Having oldbotnet working gives us a bot that's actually usable and 
brings us a lot closer to a
releasable milestone. Awesome :)
> The next step would be to implement a newbotnet module. I've seen some
> discussions about that here but IIRC there was never a decision about
> anything, not even binary vs text. So, if anyone's still interested,
> here are my ideas about it:
> 1. Text. plain and simple. Most internet protocols are plain text and
>    probably for a good reason.
> 2. A lot like the old one. It works so there shouldn't be too much to
>    change about it.
> 3. Announce everyone who connects to a bot to the whole botnet. People
>    can trigger botnet events even without being on a channel and having
>    to deal with non-existent people sucks.
> 4. Simplify the source part of a message. Like the IRC protocol. Right
>    now every message has the source part on a different position in a
>    different format. Make it simple, like "source command [optional]".
>    Encode the source in the same format every time. Just the botname if
>    it's from a bot, "id at bot" if it's from a person. Don't send the nick,
>    that's just a waste of bandwidth. That could safe a lot of code for
>    message parsing.
> 5. Allow binary data in some kind of messages, like "zapf" (what does
>    that mean anyway?) That could easily be done by escaping a newline to
>    '\n', a backslash to '\\' and a null byte to '\0'. This way it's
>    still a text protocol and the scripts don't have to worry about
>    sending binary data.
> So, any comments on that? I'll probably start implementing it next week
> or so.
Looks great to me. I like the idea of an IRC-like protocol. I think the 
whole binary-vs-text
debate prevented anything from actually getting done, so I'd definitely 
say go for it..

I'm around / alive now by the way. I work 50+ hours a week doing 
development, so I'm
usually pretty burned out, but I'm around :) It's good to see things 
getting going again.
> CU
>    Sven
> PS: I know, I broke a lot of stuff with script binds in the last few
> commits, I'll fix it after the botnet stuff is done, when it's clear
> what kind of parameters have to be passed to scripts and back.

More information about the Eggdev mailing list