having pidgin run commands from the im windows?

[Mike Jones]

oh, i am most certainly aware that you are under no obligation.

ill take your advice and look into building a plug-in. i was simply 
seeing if anyone thought that it would have been a waste of time before 
i started trying to do it.
i was hoping to do it with user defined variables, but that is not much 
of an issue, simply a parameter to pass instead of defined constants.

thanks for the input though.

-Mike

Ankit Singla wrote:
> It seems like that should be easily plugin-able currently. The hardest
> part, I think, would be the UI to collect a) what to trigger on, b)
> who to trigger for, and c) actions to perform per trigger. If you
> develop this for yourself, you could hard-code that with #defines or
> something.
>
> Disclaimer: This is not me volunteering to do it. Just saying it looks
> doable and it shouldn't be all too involved.
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 2:52 PM, Mike Jones <eternalorb at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>
>> Ankit Singla wrote:
>>     
>>> EternalOrb at gmail.com wrote:
>>>       
>>>> """""* Conor Fitzsimons had this to say on [01 Dec 2007, 23:36:37
>>>> -0500]:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you want to use the command API in purple. Look at the
>>>> uses of purple_cmd_register in pidgin source.
>>>>
>>>> We can probably have a 'Command API How-To'. John? :D
>>>>
>>>> Sadrul
>>>> """""
>>>>
>>>> as a branch from the above, would it be possible to modify the above
>>>> suggestion to include not only commands that effect pidgin that the
>>>> local user enters (see examples above),
>>>> but to grab command text, which i would assume needs a specific
>>>> formatting, that could run commands on a local machine via input from
>>>> a remote user?
>>>> as an example: my roommate and myself constantly torrent, but many
>>>> times the other is not in the apartment, and has his door locked.
>>>> well, if our torrents are leaching bandwidth to the point that
>>>> webbrowsing is pointless, it would be a nice thing to simply be able
>>>> to send the other an IM
>>>> (both of us use pidgin) saying something to the tune of "-/- close
>>>> torrent program", and on our local machines, we could have pidgin
>>>> configured that when it received that message, it would follow a
>>>> specific set of user defined instructions, namely, close the torrent
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Hm...if I understand you correctly, you want a way for another user to
>>> run commands on your computer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that
>>> a huge security risk? I'm sure it's possible to implement. It would
>>> require parsing every incoming message and if one comes in starting
>>> with a certain string then run whatever follows as a command. It just
>>> seems like a bad idea.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> i must admit, i am not all that familiar with operating systems as of
>>>> now, i dont begin coursework on them for another term, and i havnt
>>>> had time to keep up with all the changes that all of the pidgin
>>>> developers have made. so i believe that my question may be completely
>>>> out of place seeing as
>>>> other programs can accomplish the same result. but i do intend to
>>>> take a look at the command API, now that youve suggested it. cant
>>>> blame a guy for asking though, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers-
>>>> -Mike J.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>> Devel at pidgin.im
>>>> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>
>>>>         
>> it is a huge security risk if done incorrectly. with my specific
>> example, it would possibly be a modification of the buddy-pounce
>> feature. where only my roommates account was given that ability, and it
>> would only work if he matches exactly the input that the pounce
>> specified. in the example, if my roommate, and only my roommate were to
>> send "-/- close torrent program", than pidgin would execute a set of
>> steps that i programed into the pounce. if my roommate were to send
>> anything else, it would essentially be considered nothing but text. and
>> if anyone else were to send that, it also would be considered nothing
>> but plain text.
>>
>> the parsing itself isnt that significant of an issue, a FSM could easily
>> be used to see if, say, the first three characters matched exactly to
>> the "command" string. if that check failed than pidgin does nothing.
>> there are previous examples of how that could be done. for the
>> battle.net server run by blizzard for their multi player games, users
>> typically used "bots" which scanned every message in the chat to see if
>> it was a command to it, and if it was it executed that command. some
>> bots were capable of modifying files on the host's computer, and that
>> was generally considered a mute security risk, as there was a very
>> specific access list generated by the host of the bot and denied to
>> access to all others until specific permission was given.
>>
>> so, the overhead of this would only be parsing if the incoming message
>> was the command trigger, and only if the person sending the message was
>> given that option. until the command trigger is issued, than only that
>> message needs to be worries about, and operation can return to normal.
>>
>> for the general IM user, this feature probably wouldnt even be noticed.
>> but there are cases, as my example above even, where some more advanced
>> users would find it nice.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20071202/4fd7d1e5/attachment.html>