On 16 April 2012 20:34, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> IRC I/O seems like an absurdly simple and useful tool. Should it not be on
> suckless.org?
Well, we got sic already.
Cheers,
Anselm
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:43:14PM +0300, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 12:45, Truls Becken wrote:
>
> > Two questions:
> >
> > Did you consider adding SSL support?
> >
> >
> SSL would be nice :)
> I would like SSL built into ii too, tbh.
Why is something like stunnel not an option
On 17 April 2012 12:45, Truls Becken wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> Did you consider adding SSL support?
>
>
SSL would be nice :)
I would like SSL built into ii too, tbh.
I've also built a small pure bash irc bot,
if anyone's interested here it is:
https://github.com/c00kiemon5ter/Pancakes
this do
Two questions:
Did you consider adding SSL support?
Doesn't the RFC demand CRLF line terminators?
-Truls
On 17 April 2012 06:20, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> dealing with raw IRC commands, and that's why there's a large
> difference in SLOC. Bad for humans, great for bots.
So you could use like an adaptor for hubot IIUC, like Ted Dziuba's shell script
https://github.com/teddziuba/hubot/blob/master/bin
On 16 April 2012 21:45, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> How does it compare to the other two suckless minimalist IRC tools?
In short, ircio does less. It doesn't have any real parsing of the IRC
protocol aside from PING, and it's not designed for use as an IRC
client. It's equivalent to netcatting i
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
Hey all,
I've written a tiny (90 SLOC) tool for connecting to an IRC server and
streaming the connection over stdin/stdout, while responding to (and
filtering out) pings. I just wrote this so I could write simpler IRC
bots without having to worry
Greetings.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:54:53 +0200 Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 16 April 2012 19:38, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> > There is socat(1) and netcat(1). Of course they are big, but is there a
> > need to reimplement them?
>
> Neither handle IRC pings. Of course, you could
On 16 April 2012 19:38, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> There is socat(1) and netcat(1). Of course they are big, but is there a
> need to reimplement them?
Neither handle IRC pings. Of course, you could wrap them in a shell
script and so on, but at that point I begin to wonder whether
Greetings.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:38:14 +0200 "Bjartur Thorlacius"
wrote:
> IRC I/O seems like an absurdly simple and useful tool. Should it not be on
> suckless.org?
There is socat(1) and netcat(1). Of course they are big, but is there a
need to reimplement them? They do not try to include
IRC I/O seems like an absurdly simple and useful tool. Should it not be on
suckless.org?
--
-,Bjartur
Hey all,
I've written a tiny (90 SLOC) tool for connecting to an IRC server and
streaming the connection over stdin/stdout, while responding to (and
filtering out) pings. I just wrote this so I could write simpler IRC
bots without having to worry about TCP, pings, or having to reconnect
every time
12 matches
Mail list logo
