Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:50 pm
by prefect
stop whining already and cope. mental ignore should be efficient enough to handle these things. geez

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:54 am
by Mobber
^ prefect did you used to roll on Relic net?

and the bots suck....

allthough whoising them can lead to interesting channels!

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:08 pm
by prefect
Mobber wrote:^ prefect did you used to roll on Relic net?
nope. efnet 4 life


Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:17 pm
by ticztac
i couldnt help but register to post. what is the FUCKING deal with these new irc spybots is there a fucking point to this??? its happends every hr at least 3 times.

Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:22 pm
by ticztac
Someone didn't read the posting rules.

Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:00 pm
by munky
they are not spybots. they are bots that catch trojan infected clients and auto-msg spambots. they do not log anything or anyone that is in the channels they join, they only pay attention to messages sent directly to them.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:56 pm
by evil
Yeah sure.

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:21 pm
by Pills
evil wrote:Yeah sure.
OK, you caught us. The FBI, Interpol and other agencies have paid us a lot of money to spy on our users. Shh!! Don't tell anyone!

Of course, there are always servers in... debug mode!!! Oh, NO!!!

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:40 am
by Govvy
can't you just resolve a few ip's and see if they belong to a shell provider? Then give the shell provider the logs??

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:51 pm
by munky
give shell providers logs of what?
most spambots are hacked trojans or open proxies, with very little way of tracking them down to the original source.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:53 pm
by Govvy
I am no expert! I was just giving a thought! If it works or not, isn't it worth a try?

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:57 pm
by munky
i think you're missing the point
what shell provider am i supposed to give logs to? should i email and tell them there are hacked bots on sending kidney stones spam messages to #warez-n-things?
if i were to send any abuse reports, they would go to, not any shell providers. and with the volume of spambots we get on this network, it would be a fulltime job reporting them all by hand.

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:54 am
by baulditty
Glad munky explained what this was. I was just gonna make a bot that would auto ban anyone using since the joinpart bots with server added spoofhosts seem rampant on that server. Also its good to know somethings being done about all the f*cking msg spam. Hopefully soon I wont have to rely on umode +g when im away and legitimate msgs can get through again.


Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:33 am
by evil
They aren't hacked clients, they are spoofed hosts by the admin of xs4all, none of them resolve, and I'm about to write a script banning anybody on that server just so I won't have to fill up the ban list on my bots. After all, there was a suggestion of "why don't you just ban them". So be it. It's nonsense.

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:06 pm
by munky
this is why you read before you reply.
i didn't say the spamtrap bots (the clients *detecting* the spam) were hacked clients. i said the spambots (the clients that *send* the spam) are usually hacked clients and not clients sitting on shell servers.
the spamtrap bots do not all run on xs4all, there are many servers that contribute to this effort.
if you want to ban them, it's entirely up to you. and last i checked, most bots (eggdrop, emech, etc) didn't "fill up" when adding a handfull of hostmasks to ban. i believe most servers support 100 channel modes, so i don't think you can really fill up your channel ban list with a handful of bans, either.