This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Direct Client-to-Client article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | IRC Start‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Secure Direct Client-to-Client page were merged into Direct Client-to-Client on 2007-12-27. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the DCC SEND exploit page were merged into Direct Client-to-Client on 2007-12-27. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
DCC2 is in the works ( Slashdot Article on DCC2). While this might fall under the "extensions" of DCC, it looks like it's going to be a complete replacement. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article? -- Kowh 01:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm adding a note to the effect that DCC FSERVE is only available under mIRC. It doesn't exist in X-Chat or anywhere in the ircII family. -- Cuervo 01:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the reply to a PRIVMSG should not be another PRIVMSG, a CTCP reply is implemented with a NOTICE. But is the DCC ACCEPT reply, which is a reply to a reply, a CTCP message or a CTCP reply? I guess that it should be a reply, and implemented with NOTICE, but it would be nice to have this confirmed.
The only specification I could find for XMIT was an old working draft, which expired long ago. Was XMIT never accepted as a standard?
Shouldnt we include something about programming libraries avaliable to code such DCC stuffs??
The DCC Send Exploit is less than helpful to me, as I'm supposedly affected after being notified by IRC ops. In particular, this part, "Replacing [character argument] with a string of 14 or more characters ..." doesn't mean a thing; where is this [character argument] supposed to exist?
I feel the description here is ok except for that unexplained part, but a link with more details would be really helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcooncat ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe this part isnt really even needed anymore at all in the case of mIRC, I have heard that the exploit does not exist any longer in the latest versions of mIRC. This is why I keep removing it, but others revert my changes, very annoying. -- Speeddemon8803 ( talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Direct Client-to-Client article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | IRC Start‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Secure Direct Client-to-Client page were merged into Direct Client-to-Client on 2007-12-27. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the DCC SEND exploit page were merged into Direct Client-to-Client on 2007-12-27. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
DCC2 is in the works ( Slashdot Article on DCC2). While this might fall under the "extensions" of DCC, it looks like it's going to be a complete replacement. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article? -- Kowh 01:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm adding a note to the effect that DCC FSERVE is only available under mIRC. It doesn't exist in X-Chat or anywhere in the ircII family. -- Cuervo 01:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the reply to a PRIVMSG should not be another PRIVMSG, a CTCP reply is implemented with a NOTICE. But is the DCC ACCEPT reply, which is a reply to a reply, a CTCP message or a CTCP reply? I guess that it should be a reply, and implemented with NOTICE, but it would be nice to have this confirmed.
The only specification I could find for XMIT was an old working draft, which expired long ago. Was XMIT never accepted as a standard?
Shouldnt we include something about programming libraries avaliable to code such DCC stuffs??
The DCC Send Exploit is less than helpful to me, as I'm supposedly affected after being notified by IRC ops. In particular, this part, "Replacing [character argument] with a string of 14 or more characters ..." doesn't mean a thing; where is this [character argument] supposed to exist?
I feel the description here is ok except for that unexplained part, but a link with more details would be really helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcooncat ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe this part isnt really even needed anymore at all in the case of mIRC, I have heard that the exploit does not exist any longer in the latest versions of mIRC. This is why I keep removing it, but others revert my changes, very annoying. -- Speeddemon8803 ( talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)