AML v.4.X Series

[Toast]

Well once again i open the floor for developers to post thoughts on how they want this serie of AML so i don't get bothered with this later on what should be included into the detection and what should be dismissed

[adrian_007]

in my opinion:
1. remove that damn team flooders etc, for banning there is hubsoft
2. some more friendly restrictions for op/non-op clients... this is stupid, when user is banned because he's using a ''op client'' and he can't use any features dedicated for ops (discussed many times)... more restricted clients should be w/o adc 1.0 support...

and btw, don't use param names like Identity fields, it make just a mess, use normal ones, or at least %[paramUS] or sth

[Toast]

Cool anything else? i had this discussion before version 3.x and that time called for more stricter tagging at that time and im not a fan of changing course when ive started working on lists

and Adrian Reply here aswell cant start working until you do

[adrian_007]

and what i have to answer to?
TA wil give you formatted tag, ST will give you status, CO will give you formatted connection etc. simple...

[Toast]

SL <-- whats that
PK
Lock ?

am i supposed to guess my way thru the whole thing ?

[adrian_007]

http://rsxplusplus.wiki.sourceforge.net/Variables

[Toast]

Thank you

[Toast]

Test Profile for DC++

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Profiles>
	<ClientProfilesV3>
		<DetectionProfile>
			<DetectionEntry ProfileID="1">
				<Name>DC++</Name>
				<Cheat/>
				<Comment>http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/</Comment>
				<RawToSend>0</RawToSend>
				<ClientFlag>1</ClientFlag>
				<IsEnabled>1</IsEnabled>
				<CheckMismatch>1</CheckMismatch>
				<INFMaps>
					<InfField Field="CO" Pattern="^(0\.(005|0[125]|[125])|[125]|[125]0|100(0)?)$" Protocol="both"/>
					<InfField Field="VE" Pattern="^(\+\+ )?0\.(((40([0-3]|3[2-4])|6(6[6-8]|7[0-4]))|6(8(1{0,2}|[5-9])|9([1-8]|9(5)?)?)$)|70[0-7])$" Protocol="both"/>
					<InfField Field="TA" Pattern="^<\+\+ V:%[VE],%[CSM],%[CSH],%[CSS]>" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="SU" Pattern="^MiniSlots XmlBZList ADCGet TTHL TTHF (GetZBlock ZLIG )?$" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="LO" Pattern="^EXTENDEDPROTOCOLABCABCABCABCABCABC$" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="PK" Pattern="^DCPLUSPLUS%[PKVE]ABCABC$" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="TS" Pattern="^File Not Available$" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="ST" Pattern="^[12]$" Protocol="nmdc"/>
					<InfField Field="TA" Pattern="^<%[VE],%[CSM],%[CSH],%[CSS]>" Protocol="adc"/>
					<InfField Field="SU" Pattern="^((ADC0|(TCP|UDP)4){1}(,)?){1,3}$" Protocol="adc"/>
				</INFMaps>
			</DetectionEntry>
		</DetectionProfile>
	</ClientProfilesV3>
	<Params>
		<Param Name="DVE" Pattern="[\w\d \.]{2,10}"/>
		<Param Name="CSS" Pattern="(S:\d{1,10}(,O:\d{1,10})?)"/>
		<Param Name="CSL" Pattern="([BLURD]{1}:\d{1,10}([\.,](\d{1,10}))?)(,([BLURD]{1}:\d{1,10}(\.(\d{1,10}))?))?"/>
		<Param Name="CSM" Pattern="(M:[AP5]{1})"/>
		<Param Name="CSH" Pattern="(H:(\d{1,3}/){2}\d{1,3})"/>
	</Params>
	<ProfileInfo>
		<DetectionProfile>
			<Version>N/A</Version>
			<Message>N/A</Message>
			<URL>N/A</URL>
		</DetectionProfile>
	</ProfileInfo>
</Profiles>

[adrian_007]

in tag you can use params like H:%[HN]/%[HR]/%[HO] for hub counts

for additional fields, look at 2 src files - User.h and User.cpp

User.cpp
User.h

[adrian_007]

hmm and i think it'd be a good idea to add one extra field - client name (for nmdc only, this part between '<' and ' V:') because as i see it might be a nice optimization trick (no need to match all tag at all, some mismatch can be checked in separated profile)