MUSHclient : Suggestions : Registered Users

Gammon Software Solutions forum

See www.mushclient.com/spam for dealing with forum spam. Please read the MUSHclient FAQ!

Entire forum
MUSHclient
Suggestions
Registered Users

Home \| Users \| Search \| FAQ
Username:	Register forum user name
Password:	Forgotten password?

Registered Users

Reply to this subject Start a new subject Refresh page

Pages: 1 2

Posted by

Meerclar USA (554 posts)

Date

Fri 05 Sep 2003 03:47 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Depends entirely upon your codebase for how difficult/viable this really is to introduce. Dawn of Time for instance is capable of recognizing which client is in use AND can I believe recognize registered version vs unregistered. I know it can recognize (un)registered details for MC and I believe zmud as well but I don't use anything other than MC these days cause everything else well..... Let's just say DoT and MC are a nice match.

Meerclar - Lord of Cats
Coder, Builder, and Tormenter of Mortals
Stormbringer: Rebirth
storm-bringer.org:4500
www.storm-bringer.org

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (18,770 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #1 on Fri 05 Sep 2003 07:41 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Meerclar is right - MUSHclient reveals whether it is registered or not as part of the MXP negotiation. You could implement MXP and use that, the same way DoT does.

Failing that I suppose another telnet negotiation could be added, but somehow I think that if there were rewards for a certain sequence being sent, people would soon work around it.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #2 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 03:12 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Having searched this forum now for three days, I have yet to find any reference to this feature.
Where is it documented?

Posted by Flannel USA (1,230 posts) bio

Date Reply #3 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 04:08 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

its a feature of MXP, documentation (dont know if its in nicks suppliment, but it is at the original documentation)

can be found at:
http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/mxp.htm

About half/two thirs down on the page...
Under Version Control


<VERSION MXP=mxpversion STYLE=styleversion CLIENT=clientname VERSION=clientversion REGISTERED=yes/no>

~Flannel

Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.

Clones are people two.

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #4 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 04:14 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Finally an actual answer, thank you.

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (18,770 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #5 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 06:57 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

It is on this page:

http://www.gammon.com.au/forum/?bbsubject_id=238

Also, a search for "mxp version" would have found it.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #6 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 06:37 PM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

That page would not have helped me in the slightest Nick, because it does not say a single thing about the registered status or that the version tag returns it, or if mushclient supports the registered parameter being that it's optional (which i only know from the previously mentioned link).

You need to update your documentation somewhere because there is no reference to it on this site and it's sort of silly for people to have to the zmud home page to find out how to determine if mushclient users have registered :p

Posted by

Poromenos Greece (1,037 posts)

Date

Reply #7 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 07:16 PM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Well, the MXP specification was written by Zugg, so it's not silly to have to go to their page to look at it :P It's like saying that the tcp protocol should be listed here because MC uses it...

Ignore me :p

Vidi, Vici, Veni.
http://porocrom.poromenos.org/ Read it!

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #8 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 07:22 PM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Your analogy is flawed.
The mushclient site should contain the appropriate documentation for all features of MXP it supports and how it supports them. That is the entire point of having an entire forum devoted to it detailing nuance after nuance of what it can and can't do.

This was obviously left off.

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #9 on Sat 06 Sep 2003 10:19 PM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Ok, having poured through the MXP specs and set up my server to send the request and parse and format the reply... I don't like it.

It gives the information, yes, but it's rather a pain to get, because it can only do the version request after it completes negotiating over whether or not to turn on MXP, and completes turning on the MXP, and of course is dependant on them even allowing MXP in the first place.

A telnet negotiation would be easier since it would be a simple query-response instead of having to do two other query/responses first.

So while this does work, albeit somewhat crudely, I would still prefer a telnet negotiation to do it with if that feature can be added at some point.

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (18,770 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #10 on Sun 07 Sep 2003 01:02 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Sorry about the difficulty in finding the information - the very first post in the MXP section of this forum mentions that the Zugg site has the definitive spec.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I really think it can be easily worked around. For one thing, if the players *do* enable MXP, it is simple enough to parse the <VERSION> tag to find whether they are registered or not. DoT does that, for instance, and the source for that is publicly available.

As for a telnet negotiation, what do you suggest? Can people just add adhoc telnet negotiation sequences as they see fit, or will that clash with something later? Even if you did that, if players found that if their client sent some sequence IAC X y Z and they got extra privileges, they would soon program their client to send it.

To say nothing of the fact that it is easy enough to work around not actually paying for a registered version. I won't give all the details, but suffice to say I rely on people's honesty.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #11 on Sun 07 Sep 2003 02:10 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Sure a new telnet negotiation can be created. MXP, MSP, MCCP, and so on all did it, and adding one unique to a specific program isn't that uncommon.

The one mushclient prefixes returned MXP messages with is a good example of an adhoc telnet negotiation really. (1b 5b 31 7a, aka \e[1z )

We all rely on some degree of honesty, and this would rely on them registering the product the 'right' way for it to be truly fair, but nothing is ever fully fair, and I consider this incentive enough to get them to use the client, and hopefully the client itself will be incentive enough to pay for it when they're able to.

Basically how I'd recommend going about this is making the sequence as simple as possible.

Server sends : is your client registered?
Client sends : yes/no client registered

or in terms of actual ascii/ansi sequences

You can add to the ANSI terminal-type request pattern for this to make it easier, since it *is* terminal related.

Server asks:
IAC IS TERMINAL_TYPE
0xFF 0x00 0x18 (nothing currently uses this sequence)
To which they respond:
IAC SB TERMINAL_TYPE (true/false)

0xFF 0xFA 0x18 0xFB/0xFC

You can use WILL/WONT for true/false to avoid conflicting with the actual term-type string, and still remaining somewhat sensible (since will is a yes, and wont is a no).

The above sequences are off the top of my head, but I checked the appropriate RFP on term-type and it appears it would not conflict any to make this addition.

Or if you're more comfortable you can always create one entirely your own.

Pertinent RFCs:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc854.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1091.html

It's not a very large sequence, and easy to do for both client and server, but entirely up to you if you want to bother with it. As you said, those who do have MXP make it possible via the version tag, but that version tag gives a lot more info than is useful when telnet negotiation already has provided the client name and all that is wanted is the registration status.

Posted by

Meerclar USA (554 posts)

Date

Reply #12 on Sun 07 Sep 2003 10:30 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

The problem with adding a feature unique to 1 MU* to a widely used program is the potential incompatability with every MU* that isn't using that feature. Granted, the feature may be codeable and may not be a complete pain in the ass to work into the existing structure. From Nick's perspective (and mine) there is already a perfectly capable existing feature that is fairly widely supported and fairly useful in general. MXP tags are wonderful things when used to effect - check out DoT sometime to get an idea what can be done with em. Telnet negotiation is great for fairly simple things since its a fairly simple protocol, requesting registration verification isn't necessarily a simple process. MXP may very well provide more info than you want but MXP implementation can do a whole hell of a lot more for ANY MU* than another telnet negotiation request ever will. If you can't see the larger picture here, I'm sorry for you and I would strongly recommend you find something more rewarding for your time than attempting to run a MU*.

As for your complaint that Nick's documentation should contain reference for every tiny feature, as long as he notes the original spec website he has provided that. If you cant be bothered to make use of the link provided to the full spec, it's your problem, not Nick's. You asked for help, you were given what was viewed by those familiar with such things what was deemed to be the best way to handle the question you asked. If you don't like the answer you got, that's fine but do yourself a favor and lose the shitty attitude whenever anyone disagrees with you or doesn't hand you exactly what you wanted on a silver platter.

Nick, my apologies if I stepped outa line with this one, but it needed to be said.

Meerclar - Lord of Cats
Coder, Builder, and Tormenter of Mortals
Stormbringer: Rebirth
storm-bringer.org:4500
www.storm-bringer.org

Posted by

Flannel USA (1,230 posts)

Date

Reply #13 on Sun 07 Sep 2003 11:24 AM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Not only that, but it would also require ALL the other clients who you wanted to do this for, to add this feature, So are you going to go petition zugg to add it to his client? and then go around to all the other clients? (err, umm, portal maybe? I dont know of too many other major clients, oh something for mac im sure... anyway, this is off topic)

Also, Poromentos's Analogy, which in my opinion was dead on, (and what I had running in my head while I read the first sentence of his post) is very true.
The MXP help page on MC website says in the first paragraph says:
These notes are intended to complement the MXP specifications at http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/mxp.htm.
Nowhere does it claim to be definitive, nor complete. It simply gives some examples, and then a link to the official documentation.

~Flannel

Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.

Clones are people two.

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #14 on Sun 07 Sep 2003 06:29 PM (UTC) [ quote ]

Message

Meerclar, the only attitude here is yours.
I know full well what MXP can do.
I also know full well that many people hate it and refuse to use it because of the simple fact it's not widely enough supported by enough clients to be fully standardized.

Nick asked how I would go about doing it, so I told him.
I also pointed out it's entirely up to him if he wants to do it and feels there is any value to it.

I would be most happy if all clients supported such a feature, but someone has to do it first before anyone else will, just like with MXP.

Your answers to this point have been absolutely useless, so please stop responding to me unless you have something worthwhile to say, because so far you've been nothing but a billboard. "Oh Dawn of Time can that!". Useful.

Flannel: Mushclient *is* all the clients I wanted to do this for. For the most part. I give a mild calculated bonus based on several factors, including but not limited to: MXP use, HTML color turned on, speed settings above normal, terminal type response is mushclient, and registered status of the client. Most of which are dependant on each other, so missing one area automatically misses another.
I felt those details were far more useful to cultivate than the pkill bonus many muds give, and more fair to the general public, since it's their choice.

As for other clients, if Nick decides to use it, and writes up the sequence, any client or server that wants to use it is free to do so (unless he patents it and makes it exclusive for some odd reason).

As for Nick, thank you for your time as always.

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.

4,485 views.

This is page 1, subject is 2 pages long: 1 2

Reply to this subject Start a new subject Refresh page

Go to topic: Search the forum

Comments to: Gammon Software support
Forum RSS feed ( http://www.gammon.com.au/rss/forum.xml )