Remote Bot Linking

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Then use a message queue or XMPP like I said.

[Smarter]

Here's an idea, maybe I could remove the need for remote linking altogether, by having the bot parse BNet Messages (I.E Banned Messages), and have each bot randomize it's ban selection:

Code Select Expand


        public List<string> banQueue = new List<string>();
        Random r = new Random();

        public void banNext()
        {
            Ban(banQueue[r.Next(banQueue.Count)]);
        }

        public void Ban(string username)
        {
            bot.addQueue("/squelch " + username);
            bot.addQueue("/ban " + username);
            banQueue.Remove(username);
        }


Something along those lines, each bot would take a random name out of the queue to ban, and have it parse the banned messages, and continue to remove the names?

[Yegg]

You could eliminate the whole problem by just having one application that can handle multiple connections to Battle.net ("multi profile bot"). The one application could have a Global Ban Queue array or whatever you prefer.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

i would update the database's ban list, then push a message over xmpp telling everyone that the banlist has been updated, and they would issue a select something like

select * from banlist where username in ('list','of','users','in','channel')

[Mystical]

You could eliminate the whole problem by just having one application that can handle multiple connections to Battle.net ("multi profile bot"). The one application could have a Global Ban Queue array or whatever you prefer.

uh, i'd think hes talkin about having bots on seperate computers working to geather hence the whole botnet type idea.

[Yegg]

You could eliminate the whole problem by just having one application that can handle multiple connections to Battle.net ("multi profile bot"). The one application could have a Global Ban Queue array or whatever you prefer.

uh, i'd think hes talkin about having bots on seperate computers working to geather hence the whole botnet type idea.

You're right, I don't know how in the world I missed that either.

[PunK]

Bot1 Detects Load
Bot1 > Server: user1
Bot1 > Server: user2
Bot1 > Server: user3
Bot2 Dectects Same Load
Bot2 > Server: user1
Bot2 > Server: user2
Bot2 > Server: user3
etc. for each bot in the channel, each bot would be sending all these names to the server. The server of course would check for duplicate entrys and discard them, then each bot would at the same instance begin requesting queue:
Bot1 > Server: get(10)
Server > Bot1: user1, user2, user3, etc (to 10)
Bot2 > Server: get(15)
etc.

Why not vice versa? Server > Client: get(10) therefore the server manages what bots to be banned. Unless that's what you mean when you say "Server > Bot1: user1, etc...".

Perhaps instead of spamming the server, have some sort of third-party program that updates the server with a list of bots to be banned instead of all of the operators sending the same user. Just a suggestions =]

[leax]

why dont u just implment a set of protocol based interface like that of BNET or BNLS, since im sure u are already familiar with BNET style protocol formats, its perfect for exchanging info with ur botnet as well perhaps other bot developers. coz recently i just done a similar thing with my bot, i only got the structure down by basing upon the BNET protocol so that other bot can get info from my bot http://laineth.googlepages.com/lenp.html

[UserLoser]

wouldn't the existing botnet work for this?

[l2k-Shadow]

wouldn't the existing botnet work for this?

?? don't you know that inventing old ideas is cooler?

[UserLoser]

wouldn't the existing botnet work for this?

?? don't you know that inventing old ideas is cooler?

save time/money/troubleshooting why things dont work like they should

[Leaky]

do you pay your self or other people to let you program things?
i sure dont... therefor im pritty sure that me or anyone else who doesn't pay other people to let them code... is saving money either way...

[DeTaiLs]

do you pay your self or other people to let you program things?
i sure dont... therefor im pritty sure that me or anyone else who doesn't pay other people to let them code... is saving money either way...

I am pretty sure he is talking about when you get out in the working world. Why would a company pay time and resources for something that is already out there and it already works, like he said everything always runs into problems so why would you waste the time on something and try to reinvent the wheel.

[Kp]

Leaky: that post does not make much sense.  Any given programmer only has a finite amount of time to devote to working on the code.  If you can save hours by reusing an existing and perfectly functional piece of technology, then you can use those hours to work on a new feature or socialize with friends.

In the corporate world, programmer positions are typically exempt.  As such, you get paid the same amount whether it takes you five minutes or two hours to do something.  I would rather spend the five minutes doing it so that I can go home at the end of the day, instead of staying into the night debugging a new version of the wheel.

[Dale]

Leaky: that post does not make much sense.  Any given programmer only has a finite amount of time to devote to working on the code.  If you can save hours by reusing an existing and perfectly functional piece of technology, then you can use those hours to work on a new feature or socialize with friends.

In the corporate world, programmer positions are typically exempt.  As such, you get paid the same amount whether it takes you five minutes or two hours to do something.  I would rather spend the five minutes doing it so that I can go home at the end of the day, instead of staying into the night debugging a new version of the wheel.

Very well put.