3 ms·
That is the modem hangup string. You could send a icmp packet to a person containing just that and their modem would drop the connection. So it was common in IR
by mikezupan 14y ago
That is the modem hangup string. You could send a icmp packet to a person containing just that and their modem would drop the connection. So it was common in IRC for people to ping a whole channel with that and have a bunch of people quit right after.
- quesera 14y agoIRC pings don't use ICMP, but that could work if IRC clients would repeat data received without escaping first. Or if unaware users saw it come over the channel and tried to type it themselves.
- rachelbythebay 14y agoConsidering a CTCP request is just a PRIVMSG with ^A wrapped around the "command word", and a CTCP reply is just a NOTICE with the same ^A thing, you can make them "say" just about anything. It's unclear why an IRC client would need to worry about "escaping" +++, except if it's specifically been designed for people with bad modems. Those of us with good modems back in the dialup days just laughed at this insanity. Hayes used to put "+++AT" in their press releases after a certain point just to trip up any noncompliant systems which may have passed it along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Independent_Escape_Sequence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Independent_Escape_Sequenc...
- quesera 14y agoSorry, I should have been more clear. The modem could also guard the sequence by requiring interstitial pauses, but I believe this was patented by Hayes in the 80s.
- jasomill 14y agoIndeed it was, as the referenced Wikipedia article notes; Hayes charged $1/unit for a patent license. As soon as the primary application of modems became Internet access, IP encapsulation protocols like PPP could have worked around the problem, but, AFAIK, never did.