Project

General

Profile

Bug #192

using "hide ping pong event" in mIRC doesn't work with bip

Added by Pierre-Louis Bonicoli over 12 years ago. Updated over 9 years ago.

Status:
Feedback
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
2011-02-09
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Patch Available:
No
Found in Versions:
Confirmed:
No
Branch:
Security:
No
Help Needed:
No

Description

Reported by DoDzy, thank to him !

i still get [10:35] * PONG from oftc                                 <                           
it used to work when i was using psybnc             
nvm, after all it is my client misbehaving          
"If mIRC sends a PING with a parameter, it expects a PONG response with that parameter. This
is meant to be standard PING/PONG behaviour. If your bouncer is intercepting the message and
is not replying correctly, then mIRC will not work."

Related issues

Has duplicate Bip - Bug #355: Invalid PONG responseNew2014-11-07

Actions

History

#1

Updated by Hjálmar Gylfason over 12 years ago

If mIRC sends a PING with a parameter, it expects a PONG response with that parameter. This is meant to be standard PING/PONG behaviour. If your bouncer is intercepting the message and is not replying correctly, then mIRC will not work.

your text was missing some words :P

source: http://trout.snt.utwente.nl/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=151796&site_id=1#Post144201

#2

Updated by Pierre-Louis Bonicoli about 12 years ago

  • Target version changed from 0.8.8 to 0.8.9
#3

Updated by Arnaud Cornet almost 12 years ago

That's what bip replies as far as I can see:

<telnet>
PING toto
:servername PONG toto
</telnet>

I wonder what mirc expects here. maybe the :servername makes it unhappy. Any idea on how to know?

#4

Updated by Pierre-Louis Bonicoli over 11 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (Pierre-Louis Bonicoli)
#5

Updated by Marc Dequènes over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Priority changed from Normal to Low
  • Target version deleted (0.8.9)
  • Help Needed set to No

More info is needed. Currently it doesn't seem bip is behaving badly.

#6

Updated by vitok vitok over 9 years ago

Arnaud Cornet wrote:

That's what bip replies as far as I can see:

<telnet>
PING toto
:servername PONG toto
</telnet>

I wonder what mirc expects here. maybe the :servername makes it unhappy. Any idea on how to know?


<< PING LAG130951
>> :servername PONG servername :LAG130951

here's the answer the irc client (mIRC and konversation) expects.

it's answer from raw debug mode of konversation on the normal irc server.

but bip answer is

<< PING LAG130714
>> :servername PONG LAG130714

and client dos not recognizes the answer. konversation in this instance reconnect after 3 min.

#7

Updated by Marc Dequènes over 8 years ago

  • Has duplicate Bug #355: Invalid PONG response added

Also available in: Atom PDF