Hubbry Logo
IRC botIRC botMain
Open search
IRC bot
Community hub
IRC bot
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
IRC bot
IRC bot
IRC bot
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An IRC bot performing a simple task.

An IRC bot is a set of scripts or an independent program that connects to Internet Relay Chat as a client, and so appears to other IRC users as another user. An IRC bot differs from a regular client in that instead of providing interactive access to IRC for a human user, it performs automated functions.

Function

[edit]

Often, an IRC bot is deployed as a detached program running from a stable host. It sits on an IRC channel to keep it open and prevents malicious users from taking over the channel. It can be configured to give channel operator status to privileged users when they join the channel, and can provide a unified channel operator list. Many of these features require that the bot be a channel operator. Thus, most IRC bots are run from computers which have long uptimes (generally running a BSD derivative or Linux) and a fast, stable Internet connection. As IRC has become popular with many dial-up users as well, shell accounts at shell providers have become popular as a stable Linux server with a decent connection to run a bot from.

Aside from managing channel permissions, a bot can also perform functions such as logging what is posted to an IRC channel, giving out information on demand (very popular in IRC channels dealing with user support), creating statistics tracking the channel's top posters and longest-lived lurkers, or hosting trivia, Uno and other games. These functions are usually provided by scripts, often written in a scripting programming language such as Tcl or Perl by the bot's users. Channels dedicated to file sharing often use XDCC bots to distribute their files.

IRC bots are particularly useful on IRC networks such as EFnet and IRCnet without channel registration services, and on networks like Undernet or QuakeNet that require conditions to be met (minimum user count, etc.) before a channel may be registered. Where bots are used for administrative functions such as this, they may need more access than a normal client connection allows. Some versions of IRC have a "Service" protocol that allows clients with these extra powers. Such server-sanctioned bots are called IRC services.

Bots are not always welcome. Some IRC networks forbid the usage of bots. One of the reasons for doing so is that each nickname connected to the network increases the size of the network database which is being kept in sync across all servers. Allowing for bots in large networks can cause a relevant amount of network traffic overhead which needs to be financed and may even lead to netsplits.[1][2]

Comparison

[edit]
IRC bot Primary developers Software license Operating system Programming language First public release - date (version) Latest version - date (version) Notable features Function scope Website
AnGeL-Bot Benedikt Hübschen GPL-3 Windows Visual Basic 6 1999 (1.2.0) 2003-05-31 (1.6.2 BETA 10) The fastest Windows IRC bot of its time, extensive scripting support via Windows Scripting, compatibility with multiple Active Scripting languages, colored partyline, and Eggdrop-compatible botnet support. multi-purpose [1]
Cardinal John Maguire MIT Cross-platform Python 3 2013-02-03 (beta) 2021-01-13 (3.1.0) Ease of development, re-loadable asynchronous plugins, python decorators for commands, IRC events, simple persistent JSON data storage and a well-documented API. ? [2]
Pynfo kuran GPL-2 Cross-platform Python 2002-10-21 2013-02-27 Network bridging/relaying, basic "infobot" capabilities, googling, 3 access tiers, and a shorter-link function. Easily extensible and fully disk-persistent. ? [3]
Supybot Jeremiah Fincher, James Vega and others BSD Cross-platform Python ? (0.30) 2018-05-10 (0.84.0) Many plugins, SSL, multiple networks support, (un)loading plugins, threads, configuration registry, standardized command syntax, argument parsing ? [4], [5]
Cerberus Stefan Hüsges GPL-3.0 Cross-platform PHP 2008-02-18 (beta) 2016-10-04 (1.6.0) ? ? [6]
Cinch Dominik Honnef, Lee Jarvis MIT Unix-like Ruby 2010-07-08 (0.3.2) 2015-03-31 (2.2.5) Threaded, object-oriented Bot writing framework [7]
CNT Bot CNT Bot Team Unlicense Unix-like TCL 2015-06-15 (0.1) 2015-07-24 (0.2) Voting, polling, elect/recall delegates, hold plenaries, admission control, automatically connects to other CNT Bots Democracy software for digital activists building flat, horizontal networks [8]
Darkbot Jason Hamilton, juice GPL Unix-like C ? ? ? responds to user questions from database [9]
Daskeb Digit GPL Unix-like Haskell ? ? minimal starter bot ? [10]
Eggdrop Eggheads GPL Cross-platform C 1993-12 2022-03-06 (1.9.2) SSL, botnet, partyline, filesharing, user management, IRC bot uptime contest, supports scripting in tcl multi-purpose [11]
EnergyMech Proton GPL Unix-like C 1998-09-10 (2.5.24, first release by Proton) 2018-03-09 (3.0.99p4) single-thread multi-bot capable, low resource usage, botnet, user management, channel moderation, built-in irc bouncer, can be upgraded without disconnecting, IRC bot uptime contest, supports scripting in tcl, python. multi-purpose [12]
Erebot François Poirotte GPL-3.0 Cross-platform PHP 2010-10-09 2011-05-08 Extensible with many modules and support for multiple networks, multiple identities, SSL/TLS, STARTTLS, IdentD and various IRC daemons extensions. Can be used as a framework to create advanced channel bots. games [13]
Erwin Idar Lund GPL-2.0+ Cross-platform Perl 2004-04-05 (1.0-beta1) 2017-03-19 (1.2.0) Easily expandable by writing new modules. Replies to users from database. [14]
FoxBot Lee Watson GPL-3.0 Cross-platform Java ? 2013-09-06 (0.9) Command framework is designed to make writing commands easy. Has simple and powerful permissions system. Simple and fully explained config. ? [15]
FoxEye Andriy Grytsenko GPL Unix-like C 2011-01 (beta) 2011-02-24 (0.9b10) Multithreaded, multinetworked. Encoding chosen per user or network. Extendible by plugins, can be used as client or whatever. Currently supported scripts: Lua, Tcl. kit to build internet client / server / gateway, primary for messaging networks [16]
Gambot Derek Hoagland GPL Unix-like Perl 2011-1-1 2011-07-16 (1.0) Framework for creating bots. Messages handled completely asynchronously. Extensible in any programming language. Can be updated without reconnecting, restarting, or reloading. Twitter and other feeds, games / memes, [17]
Gozerbot Bart Thate BSD Unix-like Python ? ? (1.0.1) IRC and XMPP bot; can be bridged with Google Wave ? [18]
mikoskinen Geoff Woollams MIT Cross-platform C# 2015-10-08 2015-10-09 (0.1) IRC commands can launch any command line or http request to allow any program or script to control the bot by its output. MySQL support for non user initiated actions and 3rd party integration. ? [19]
guppy Svetlana Tkachenko GPL Cross-platform Python 2011-03-20 2012-12-11 (0.4.3) easy to install, modular structure multi-purpose [20]
Ibid Jonathan Hitchcock, Michael Gorven, Stefano Rivera GPL3, core under MIT Unix-like Python, Twisted in IM protocols ? (0.1.0) ? (0.1.1) Twisted engine allows connecting to multiple IM sources, including IRC, XMPP, SILC, Campfire, NMDC ? + plugin "factoids" responds to users from database [21]
Infobot Kevin Lenzo Artistic License Unix-like Perl 2004-08 2008-08-01 (1.5.3) ? replies to users from database [22]
IrcBot Marlinc BSD Unix-like PHP ? (0.1) ? (1.2) ? ? [23]
jenni Michael Yanovich EFLv2 Unix-like Python (2) ? ? Threaded, general purpose, includes some games. Easily expandable by writing new modules. user management, conversation / lookup, games [24]
irccd David Demelier ISC Cross-platform C++17 and JavaScript 2013-09-13 (1.0.0) 2021-01-04 (3.1.1) Multiple servers, rules filtering, templates system, cross-platform, extensible with JavaScript and C++ plugins bot framework [25]
Jerkbot Jason Stephenson Artistic License 2.0 Cross-platform Sleep 2014-02-10 (1.0) 2017-08-29 (1.7.65) Configurable chatter bot, written as jIRCii script responsive chatter + learns + modules [26]
JSONBOT Bart Thate MIT Unix-like Python 2010-04 2012-03-23 (0.84.4) Beta [27]
JZBot Alexander Boyd, Maximilian Dirkmann, James Stoker LGPL Cross-platform Java ? ? ? feeds, werewolf / maffia, karma system, reminders [28]
KGB Martín Ferrari and Damyan Ivanov GPL-2+ Cross-platform Perl 2008-07-14 (Git) 2014-09-17 (1.3.3) KGB is a system that provides notifications on IRC for commits made to Git, Subversion and CVS repositories. notifications on code commits [29]
Lambdabot Andrew J. Bromage et al. MIT Unix-like Haskell ? (1.0) 2011-01-20 (4.2.3.2) Many plugins; usable offline as a Haskell development tool; embeddable in GHCi haskell development tool [30]
Limnoria BSD Cross-platform Python ? 2022-07-29 (2022.07.29) See Supybot A maintained fork of Supybot [31]
Mozbot Ian Hickson, Chris Crews MPL Cross-platform Perl ? ? ? services to developer communities [32]
MrBot - AwesomeBot MattMc Apache v2 Cross-platform Java November '13 2014-06-01 A Semi-Advanced Java Bot with a ton of feactures and still more coming... join #AwesomeBot on espernet for more info.. factoids + lastseen [33]
nibblrjr Kirjava None Cross-platform JavaScript ? ? bot framework for creating custom behaviour dynamically Bot framework [34]
node-irc Martyn Smith GPLv3 Unix-like JavaScript ? 2015-01-16 (0.3.9) Node- native non blocking NodeJS IRC library. [35]
PircBot Paul Mutton GPL Cross-platform Java 2001-08-01 2009-12-14 (1.5.0) Framework for creating bots framework to create bots [36]
pmxbot YouGov, Jamie Turner, Chris Mulligan MIT Unix-like Python 3 ? ? Designed to be extensible for a work IRC network conversation, search, games [37]
Ruby-rbot ruby-rbot GPL Unix-like Ruby ? ? flexible plugin system Twitter & RSS feeds, searches, games [38]
Rubybot umby24 GPL-3.0 Cross-platform Ruby ? 2013-10-30 (4.2) Simple, yet easily extensible. user-management [39]
Schongo Selig, Posiden, Wil ? Cross-platform Python 3 ? ? Focus on simplicity, highly extendable module system, rapid development cycle internet searches [40]
Shadow Aaron Blakely MIT Cross-platform Perl 2012-08-31 2022-06-09 Reloadable plugins, channel management, weather info, link metadata fetching, RSS, and more. multi-purpose, bot framework [41]
Shocky Shockah, clone1018 GPL-2.0 Cross-platform Java ? ? A Very advanced Java irc bot, that supports all kinds of stuff user management, factoids, games, karma system [42]
sircbot Alpine Linux GPL-2.0 Unix-like C (Lua scriptable) ? 2011-12-15 Simple IRC bot for shell and lua scripts ? wiki
Sopel dgw, Elsie Powell, Dimitri Molenaars, Elad Alfassa, Ari Koivula EFLv2 Cross-platform Python 2012-07-15 (3.0.0) 2020-08-04 (7.0.6) SSL, (un)loading of plugins at runtime, threaded, user/channel/plugin settings database, Python 3 support. (Formerly Willie; based originally on phenny) Twitter & other feeds, internet searches, meetingbot, link information [43]
Tennu Havvy (Ryan Scheel) ISC Cross-platform JavaScript 2012-03-08 (1.0.0) 2016-06-22 (4.9.0) Node.js, Plugin architecture, Promise driven user management [44]
Ultros gdude2002 and rakiru Artistic License 2.0 Cross-platform Python2 2013-04-08 (Git) 2014-09-25 (1.1.0+ - see commits) Python IRC bot with an extensible plugin and protocol system, and a package manager. Also supports mumble. internet searches, games git
VikingBot Tor Henning Ueland GPL-3.0 Unix-like PHP ? 2013-10-09 Simple PHP based IRC bot with support for secure IRC servers and plugin support bot stats [45]
Yauib Julien Palard Simplified BSD Cross-platform Python 2011-03-22 ? Plugins can be written in any language takes all pubmsg and priv and tries to match the first word as a command to a directory with exec files and the rest as parameters [46]
[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

IRC bot

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An IRC bot, short for Internet Relay Chat bot, is a software program that connects to an IRC network as a client, simulating user to perform automated tasks such as channel moderation, conversations, delivering notifications, hosting games, or providing informational services. Emerging in the early following IRC's development in 1988, the first recognized IRC bots were Jyrki Alakuijala's Puppe, Greg Lindahl's Game Manager for running games like , and Bill Wisner's Bartender. Notable implementations include Eggdrop, released in 1993 and still actively maintained as a robust scripting-based bot for services like protection and trivia. While IRC bots enable efficient automation in persistent chat environments, they have also facilitated malicious applications, such as botnets commanding distributed denial-of-service attacks or via IRC channels.

History

Origins in Early IRC

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) was developed by in August 1988 at the in as a replacement for the limited chat functionality of the local BBS system OuluBox. Early IRC networks faced inherent technical limitations, including frequent network splits (netsplits) due to unreliable connections and a lack of mechanisms for persistent channel control, which enabled opportunistic takeovers by users exploiting operator privileges during operator absences or disconnections. Bots emerged in the late and early as automated clients to mitigate these issues, providing continuous presence to safeguard channel ownership and perform basic moderation tasks that human operators could not reliably sustain amid connection instability and adversarial actions prevalent in growing networks like by the early . These initial bots operated by idling in channels, logging conversations, issuing simple scripted responses, and enforcing rudimentary rules, thereby filling gaps in human oversight without advanced capabilities. Among the earliest documented IRC bots were Puppe, created by Jyrki Alakuijala around late 1989 or early 1990 to engage in discussions and automate interactions; , developed by Lindahl to facilitate games such as ; and Bartender, authored by Bill Wisner for service-oriented . These prototypes demonstrated bots' utility in practical but were constrained by the era's primitive scripting, often running on limited hardware and prone to crashes or detection as non-human entities.

Development of Key Bot Software

The development of key IRC bot software accelerated in the early 1990s through open-source initiatives that emphasized channel protection, automation, and extensibility via scripting. Eggdrop, initiated by Robey Pointer in December 1993, stands as a foundational example, originally crafted in Tcl to safeguard the channel #gayteen by automating user management, kick protections, and basic services. Its modular design, allowing Tcl script extensions for features like flood detection and access controls, rapidly positioned it as a among channel operators seeking reliable, non-interactive presence in IRC environments. By the mid-1990s, Eggdrop's influence spurred broader adoption of scripting-centric frameworks, with its active maintenance under the GNU General Public License fostering community contributions and derivatives. Complementary bots emerged leveraging 's robust text-parsing capabilities for custom IRC interactions, such as real-time logging and trigger-based responses, aligning with Perl's surge in popularity for network scripting during this era. Similarly, Python's readability enabled early experimental bots for tasks like message filtering, though Tcl remained dominant for production-grade protection due to Eggdrop's proven stability. These advancements democratized bot deployment, enabling operators to counter disruptions like floods without constant human oversight. The rapid proliferation of such bots in the early , coinciding with IRC's expansion, highlighted risks of over-automation, including channel instability from competing scripts, which influenced network operators to codify guidelines on bot behavior and permissions. Eggdrop's enduring framework, still under development into the , exemplifies how these tools evolved from ad-hoc utilities into robust, scriptable systems that underpinned IRC's operational resilience.

Evolution into Malicious Variants

In the late 1990s, benign IRC bots such as Eggdrop, originally developed for channel administration, began to be reprogrammed for malicious purposes including network infiltration, user spying, and coordinated flooding attacks. These adaptations exploited IRC's scripting capabilities to automate disruptive actions, with early instances tied to "IRC wars" where operators used flood scripts—precursors to distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks—to seize control of unregistered channels by overwhelming servers with excessive messages. Large-scale DoS incidents on IRC networks emerged as early as late 1996 and 1997, often leveraging vulnerabilities in client software to amplify floods from multiple sources. By 1999, integrated IRC interfaces directly, marking a shift toward persistent backdoors; PrettyPark, an email-propagating worm also functioning as a password-stealing Trojan, represented one of the earliest examples with an IRC-based communication channel for remote control. This evolution reflected IRC's inherent design as an open, plaintext protocol, which imposed no or barriers, allowing attackers to repurpose chat servers for command issuance with low resource demands and evasion of early detection tools. During the 2000s, IRC bots proliferated as core components of botnets, with families like Win32/IRCBot—a backdoor Trojan—using IRC servers for command-and-control (C&C) due to the protocol's in directives to infected hosts without proprietary infrastructure. These variants enabled scalable operations such as DDoS orchestration and , as IRC's flood-prone structure and lack of built-in safeguards facilitated rapid bot herding; for instance, attackers could join channels to issue private messages triggering actions across hundreds of compromised systems. The persistence stemmed from practical incentives—IRC's ubiquity reduced development costs—rather than any deliberate oversights in the protocol's .

Technical Functionality

Core Operational Mechanisms

IRC bots operate as client programs that establish connections to IRC servers using the IRC client protocol defined in RFC 2812, which supersedes the original specifications in RFC 1459. This involves initiating a TCP/IP connection, typically on port 6667 for or 6697 for TLS-encrypted sessions, followed by registration commands such as to set the bot's nickname and USER to provide user details. Once connected, bots join channels via the JOIN command and maintain persistent sessions, parsing incoming server messages to trigger predefined actions. Core interactions revolve around event-driven responses to protocol messages, such as PRIVMSG for private or channel messages, JOIN for user entries, and PART or QUIT for departures. Bots employ pattern-matching logic to evaluate message content— for instance, scanning for keywords, commands prefixed by triggers like "!", or user privileges— and generate deterministic outputs like replies, mode changes, or kicks. This scripted reactivity ensures reliable automation, as responses derive causally from input parsing without reliance on external state beyond the protocol's message routing. However, the predictability of these rule-based mechanisms can expose bots to exploits, where attackers craft inputs to match patterns and elicit unintended behaviors, such as flooding or unauthorized actions. Common operational features include services, where bots handle registration queries via private messages to prevent nickname squatting; auto-operations, which monitor JOIN events and issue MODE +o commands to grant operator status based on access lists; and , involving the capture and storage of parsed for auditing. Advanced implementations may function as pseudoservers, linking to the IRC network via server-to-server protocols (RFC 2813) to emulate authoritative services like channel registration, thereby integrating seamlessly with client views while offloading processing from primary servers. These mechanisms prioritize causal fidelity to protocol events, enabling scalable, rule-governed operations but necessitating robust input validation to mitigate abuse from malformed or adversarial messages.

Programming Languages and Frameworks

Eggdrop, one of the most enduring IRC bots, utilizes a core written in C for high performance and reliability, augmented by Tcl scripting for extensibility and customization. This combination prioritizes efficiency, allowing the bot to handle channel management tasks with minimal resource overhead on era-appropriate hardware. emerged as a favored for early IRC bot development due to its robust text manipulation capabilities and modular libraries like Net::IRC, enabling flexible parsing of IRC protocols without excessive computational demands. Bots implemented in demonstrated empirical advantages in rapid script iteration for protocol handling, though they required careful memory management to avoid leaks in persistent operations. For performance-critical applications, C implementations provided low-level control over socket operations and event loops, reducing latency in high-volume channels compared to interpreted languages. Subsequent shifts favored Python for its accessibility and standard library support for networking, as evidenced by widespread adoption in modern bot projects where development speed outweighed raw execution efficiency. Python's garbage collection and exception handling simplified error-prone IRC reconnection logic, though it incurs higher memory usage than C equivalents. Frameworks like Supybot and Phenny, both Python-based, introduced modular plugin architectures that separate core IRC connectivity from feature-specific logic, promoting and easier maintenance in open-source repositories. These designs empirically reduce development time for extensions, with Supybot's ACL system enabling fine-grained permission controls without recompilation. The resulting bots maintain lightweight footprints, often executable in under 10MB of RAM, facilitating deployment on legacy or constrained servers.

Types of IRC Bots

Utility and Service Bots

Utility and service bots in IRC primarily automate routine channel operations, such as storing and retrieving user-defined information, tracking interaction metrics, and providing basic query responses, thereby enabling efficient management without constant human oversight. These bots emerged to address the need for persistent data handling in stateless IRC environments, where channels could span multiple users and sessions. For instance, bots like Infobot, initially developed in in 1995 by Kevin Lenzo, allow users to associate keywords with stored text or URLs via commands like "keyword is value," facilitating quick retrieval through queries such as "!keyword." Similarly, karma trackers maintain counters for positive ("++") and negative ("--") mentions of nicknames, offering commands to query scores and promote engagement tracking in community channels. Such bots deliver empirical advantages in scalability for high-volume networks like , where manual repetition of information would overburden operators; logs from persistent channels demonstrate reduced query handling by humans, as bots handle thousands of factoid stores and retrieves daily in active setups. This automation stems from causal efficiencies in protocol design—bots leverage IRC's event-driven messaging to update internal databases in real-time, minimizing latency compared to operator-typed responses. Weather or info retrievers, often integrated as modules in frameworks like Supybot (now Limnoria), parse user requests for static or pre-fetched data, such as dictionary definitions or simple calculations, further offloading informational labor. However, early implementations faced inherent constraints due to IRC's text-based protocol and lack of native external interfaces, limiting bots to pattern-matching logic and flat-file storage without dynamic pulls; complex queries, like real-time weather updates, required manual scripting or were infeasible until later external wrappers emerged around the early . These limitations ensured reliability in core functions but restricted versatility, as bots could not autonomously fetch live , relying instead on channel-provided inputs for accuracy.

Game and Entertainment Bots

Game and entertainment bots on IRC provide interactive recreational features, such as quizzes, chess , and multiplayer text-based games, enhancing user engagement in social channels through scripted challenges and competitions. These bots process user commands to initiate sessions, track progress, and enforce rules via predefined logic, distinguishing them from more utilitarian or administrative variants by their focus on activities. Developed primarily in the late and , they leveraged IRC's real-time text interface to simulate games without requiring external software. A pioneering example is Lindahl's , released around 1989, which coordinated multiplayer instances of the text-based adventure game, allowing participants to explore virtual caves and avoid hazards through IRC commands. Similarly, the open-source IRC Chess enables direct two-player chess matches on IRC channels, where users issue moves like "e4" for validation against standard rules, with the bot maintaining board state and detecting or conditions. Trivia bots, prevalent in casual channels, draw from static question databases to host competitive quizzes, scoring responses based on exact matches and timing, as seen in custom scripts integrated into bots like those extending Eggdrop frameworks from 1993 onward. Other entertainment bots automate social deduction games, such as the ZxoR Mafia Bot, an open-source project that facilitates text-based rounds of the Mafia (also known as ), assigning hidden roles to players and moderating voting phases via IRC interactions. These systems rely on rule-based programming—typically in languages like Tcl or —implementing deterministic if-then logic for game flow, player inputs, and outcomes, without employing or adaptive algorithms. Open-source repositories for such bots reveal hardcoded databases and state machines, confirming their simplicity and reliance on explicit rules rather than probabilistic inference. During the , these bots proliferated in IRC's social ecosystems, particularly amid the mid-decade "bot explosion" that introduced automated fun to otherwise conversation-focused channels, though their scope remained constrained to basic text interactions without graphical elements or complex narratives.

Malicious and Attack Bots

Malicious IRC bots exploit the protocol's open structure and user anonymity to conduct targeted disruptions and , often coordinating via dedicated channels to amplify damage against individuals, channels, or entire networks. These bots emerged alongside IRC's growth in the , leveraging scripting ease in languages like Tcl for rapid deployment of attacks that could disconnect users or compromise credentials without immediate traceability. Flood and DDoS bots represent a primary vector for denial-of-service, bombarding targets with high-volume messages to exhaust bandwidth or trigger server kicks. CTCP flood scripts, for instance, send repeated requests—such as VERSION or queries—to overwhelm a user's client or server , effectively removing them from channels and disrupting ongoing conversations. Early variants combined CTCP with DCC floods or channel joins from cloned bots, enabling attacks that severed thousands of simultaneous connections in IRC networks during the late 1990s. Channel disruption bots employ mass deop and functionalities to seize control from legitimate operators, stripping operator status (+o) from multiple users in seconds and following with bans or evictions to enable takeovers or spam injection. War scripts incorporating these features proliferated in competitive IRC environments, where attackers used them to dismantle moderated channels, resulting in temporary loss of spaces and . Information theft variants, such as the NGR bot framework documented in 2012, hook into browser processes to intercept credentials like FTP passwords and session cookies, propagating via IRC commands to infect additional hosts. This modular design allowed operators to commandeer thousands of compromised machines for credential harvesting, underscoring IRC's role as a resilient C&C channel even as HTTP alternatives emerged. IRC's pseudonymity facilitated such scalability, with botnets achieving rapid infection rates through automated joins and private message payloads, often evading early detection due to the protocol's lack of inherent authentication.

Applications and Uses

Channel Management and Moderation

IRC bots facilitate channel management by automating the enforcement of rules, particularly in detecting and punishing disruptive actions such as flooding—rapid successive messages—and , through mechanisms like automatic kicks and temporary or permanent bans. Eggdrop, the longest-running open-source IRC bot since its initial release in , exemplifies this by using configurable modules to monitor message rates and user behavior, kicking offenders when thresholds are exceeded as defined in its channel-specific settings. Operator delegation is achieved via bots holding persistent channel operator (op) status, which they selectively grant to verified users based on hostmask matching and privilege flags, thereby preventing unauthorized takeovers. In Eggdrop configurations, this involves associating users with consistent handles via hostmasks and applying channel flags—such as auto-op (+o) for trusted parties—while features like stopnethack-mode de-op incoming users to neutralize potential threats upon entry. For trusted automation, Eggdrop employs bot flags set through the .botattr command, allowing linked bots in a to share duties without compromising control, as seen in setups where +s (share) or channel-specific flags enable coordinated op protection and rule enforcement. Channel modes are rigidly maintained via .chanset directives, such as chanmode +nt to enforce topic locks and no-invites policies, ensuring consistent even during operator absences. These automated tools prove reliable against routine disruptions from casual trolls, reducing the workload on human operators in persistent channels, though their rule-based detection can be evaded by persistent or adaptive actors employing varied patterns.

Information Provision and Automation

IRC bots serve as intermediaries for delivering external information to channel users by scripting connections to data sources and responding to predefined triggers or commands. This automation enables real-time or on-demand provision of updates, such as news headlines from RSS feeds, which bots parse and announce periodically to keep participants informed without manual intervention. For instance, open-source implementations like Python-based RSS-to-IRC relays fetch feed content and post summaries directly to channels, streamlining content distribution in communities focused on technology or security news. Additional functionalities include dictionary-style lookups, where bots maintain or query databases of terms and definitions, responding to user requests with precise entries to aid discussions or learning. Uptime monitoring represents another common integration, with bots calculating and reporting system or service operational durations upon query, useful for network administrators tracking reliability in shared environments. These features, often implemented via extensible frameworks like Eggdrop—which supports Tcl scripts for custom data handling—emerged as early as the mid-1990s, allowing operators to embed simple network queries or local file accesses before the proliferation of standardized . In the pre-2000 era, prior to the web's explosive growth, such bots relied on rudimentary scripted integrations like finger protocol queries or DNS lookups for basic status information, reducing the need for users to switch contexts in an age when search engines were nascent and dial-up connections limited multitasking. This approach minimized response times within IRC sessions compared to external tool usage, though empirical measurements of latency reductions remain anecdotal due to the era's logging practices. However, these systems inherit IRC's architectural constraints, including total dependence on the bot's host server uptime—failure of which halts all services—and the protocol's default lack of encryption, exposing relayed data to interception on unsecured networks unless operators implement add-ons like SSL wrappers post-2000.

Community and Social Functions

IRC bots have supported by automating greetings and informational responses to newcomers, thereby aiding orientation in persistent channels. In networks lacking native services, user-operated bots delivered customized entry messages upon user joins, such as announcements in support channels like #help on GeekShed, which stated: "Hello, welcome to #help. Please be patient, as the staff may be helping other users or away from their keyboards." These functions encouraged participation in open, decentralized environments where human moderators could not monitor continuously, helping to sustain activity without relying on centralized infrastructure. Bots further enhanced group decision-making through integrated polling and voting mechanisms, enabling quick consensus on channel matters. For example, the Chad bot, developed for W3C meetings, facilitated preference polls over IRC sessions by collecting structured votes from participants. Similarly, bots like SimpleBot supported commands such as "!vote" to tally options in ongoing polls, while CNT Bot allowed voting on operational commands like mode changes. Prior to widespread network services, channel bots emulated basic registration aids, such as enforcing nickname loyalty by monitoring and acting against squatters, a precursor to tools like NickServ introduced in 1990 for friendly reminders that evolved into formal protection. This automation fostered reliability in volatile networks, where manual oversight was impractical. In (FOSS) communities, bots promoted knowledge sharing via systems, storing and retrieving predefined responses to queries for efficient coordination. Infobots, for instance, allowed channels to maintain shared lore, with communities bridging multiple bots to propagate factoids across networks. IRC channels employed infobots to respond to commands like "!flash" with pre-written explanations, assisting developers without constant human intervention. project channels on OFTC and similarly integrated bots for such utilities, supporting ongoing collaboration in Linux-related discussions. These features underscored bots' role in bolstering social cohesion through persistent, low-overhead interactions in distributed teams.

Risks and Security Issues

Vulnerabilities Exploited by Bots

The IRC protocol, specified in RFC 1459 (May 1993), allows clients to establish connections and join channels via simple and JOIN commands without requiring server-side or verification of user identity. This unauthenticated access model, intended to enable seamless group communication, permits bots to masquerade as legitimate users, participate anonymously, or coordinate actions across multiple connections without barriers. Pre-IRCv3 implementations, predominant until extensions emerged around 2011, operated entirely in without native or standardized mechanisms like SASL, exposing all traffic—including commands, channel states, and operator privileges—to and manipulation by bots on shared networks. Bots exploited this by injecting forged commands, such as rapid MODE changes to revoke operator (op) status in channels, often during transient network instabilities where desynchronized states allowed privilege escalations. Flooding represents a core exploit vector, as the protocol imposes no inherent rate limits on message volume; bots can automate high-velocity bursts of PRIVMSG, , or CTCP requests to saturate server processing, trigger client disconnections, or induce cascading failures across linked servers. Such attacks leverage the protocol's emphasis on low-latency transmission over throttling, empirically demonstrated in early network disruptions where uncoordinated message queues overwhelmed limited bandwidth and CPU resources typical of 1990s infrastructure. From an engineering standpoint, IRC's minimalist design—favoring asynchronous, connection-oriented efficiency for real-time chat—causally predisposed it to these abuses, as the absence of protocol-level safeguards like quotas or cryptographic verification prioritized interoperability and speed at the expense of resilience against automated adversaries. Legacy behaviors, such as reliance on client-side nickname enforcement without server-enforced uniqueness during reconnects, further enabled bots to orchestrate deop floods or state hijackings in desynchronized environments.

Role in Botnets and Cyber Attacks

IRC bots have served as command-and-control (C&C) infrastructure in botnets since the early , allowing attackers to remotely orchestrate compromised machines for attacks including distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) floods and keylogging. These networks leverage IRC's channel-based structure to issue commands to thousands of bots anonymously, magnifying attack scale without requiring centralized servers vulnerable to . For instance, malware families like Backdoor:Win32/IRCbot establish persistent connections to IRC servers, enabling remote access, file downloads, and execution of payloads such as DDoS tools or . The protocol's design facilitates low-detection C&C due to traffic resembling legitimate IRC usage, with command volumes often too sparse to trigger volume-based alerts. further obscure communications, evading signature-based detection tools that struggle with SSL/TLS-wrapped sessions. Public IRC channels have been exploited for DDoS coordination, where bots amplify floods from infected hosts, overwhelming targets without direct traceability to the operator. Over time, pure IRC botnets evolved toward hybrid models incorporating or HTTP fallbacks for resilience against server seizures, though IRC persists in niche threats for its simplicity and established bot codebases. These operations have inflicted tangible harms, including financial losses from DDoS disruptions—such as $19,500 reported in one case tied to botnet attacks—and broader ecosystem damage from credential theft via keyloggers, countering claims of mere "experimentation" by demonstrating coordinated exploitation for profit.

Mitigation Strategies and Operator Responses

Operators employ channel modes such as +r, which restricts unregistered or unidentified users from participating, effectively limiting automated bots that lack proper via services like NickServ. This mode is automatically applied by servers to connections from suspicious hosts or distant origins, preventing bots from joining or executing commands without identification. Similarly, +i (invite-only) and +k (keyed) modes require explicit permissions, forcing operators to vet participants and exclude scripted entrants. Bot-specific bans utilize the +b mode to target patterns in nicknames, usernames, or hostmasks, such as !bot@, blocking matching connections at the channel or network level. Operators can enforce these dynamically using services or scripts to scan for repetitive behaviors indicative of automation, like high message rates or unnatural join patterns. Cloaking, a feature masking real IP addresses and hostnames with server-assigned vhosts, aids legitimate users but allows operators to de-cloak suspicious entities for tracing, revealing origins despite evasion attempts. Network policies have evolved to prohibit open or unregistered bots following historical abuses; for instance, EFnet's decentralized structure empowers channel operators to impose harsh bans on disruptive automation, while post-2010 incidents prompted stricter oversight on networks like (now ) against unapproved bots. Requiring TLS/SSL connections thwarts many legacy bots reliant on unencrypted traffic, as encrypted mandates break simplistic scripts lacking certificate handling. Tracing tools enable operators to map bot command-and-control paths; utilities like , extended by visualizers such as NeoTrace, plot IP routes to identify upstream providers or compromised hosts coordinating attacks. ISP-level interventions, including edge router filtering and bot remediation protocols, have contributed to a decline in IRC-based botnets since the by quarantining infected endpoints and blocking C&C channels, as evidenced by shifts in threat reports showing reduced IRC reliance in favor of HTTP/P2P models.

Comparisons and Alternatives

Versus Modern Chat Automation Tools

IRC bots, operating on a decentralized protocol established in 1988, enable scripting in diverse languages like or Python without reliance on proprietary APIs, allowing operators to customize behaviors directly on self-hosted servers. In contrast, modern tools such as or Slack bots depend on centralized APIs with structured endpoints, often requiring adherence to platform-specific SDKs for integration, which enforces permissions and rate limits but introduces dependency on vendor updates. This API-driven model in , for instance, uses OAuth 2.0 for token-based , enabling granular access controls like read-only scopes, whereas IRC lacks native mechanisms for such delegated , relying instead on channel operator privileges that can be easily bypassed through nickname spoofing or floods. Security trade-offs favor modern platforms empirically: Discord bots are tagged visibly and confined by permission hierarchies, reducing unauthorized actions, with mitigating credential exposure compared to IRC's passwords or shared nicks, which have facilitated historical exploits like denial-of-service via rapid joins. IRC's open nature heightens abuse potential, as bots can impersonate users without inherent verification, contributing to spam prevalence in unmoderated channels, while modern implementations, though not immune to token theft, incorporate scopes and revocation to limit damage. Deployment costs underscore IRC's edge for resource-constrained setups; bots require only a lightweight server instance—often under 1 MB RAM—incurring no per-user fees, unlike Slack's $8 active user monthly charge for message history beyond free tiers or 's Nitro premium for advanced bot hosting stability. Functionally, IRC bots excel in text-based persistence without overhead, supporting always-on tasks like in niche tech communities, where networks like reported sustained bot usage for automation in 2023-2024 FOSS projects. Modern bots, however, integrate embeds, voice modulation, and rich previews natively—Discord's , for example, handles file uploads up to 100 MB—enabling hybrid workflows absent in IRC's protocol-limited text streams. This results in IRC avoiding , permitting seamless migration across servers, but at the expense of features like searchable archives or cross-device sync enforced by platforms like Slack. Despite these gaps, IRC bots persist in technical niches, such as GitHub-integrated channels or European developer forums, where simplicity trumps richness; surveys indicate tens of thousands of in 2024, with bots handling without API quotas that constrain modern equivalents during peaks. The decentralized model thus trades enhanced and media support for flexibility and minimalism, appealing where autonomy outweighs convenience.

Differences from Web and App-Based Bots

IRC bots operate on the dedicated Internet Relay Chat (IRC) protocol, which establishes persistent, stateful TCP connections for real-time, bidirectional text communication, enabling immediate message pushes to connected clients without polling mechanisms. In contrast, web-based bots typically interface via APIs, which are stateless and request-response oriented, often requiring webhooks, long-polling, or to approximate real-time functionality, introducing latency from API overhead and server round-trips. App-based bots, such as those on platforms like or Slack, similarly leverage proprietary APIs with structured endpoints for events, but these impose tokens, , and platform-specific SDKs that standardize integration while centralizing control. The operational environment of IRC bots emphasizes federation and , as the protocol allows independent server networks where bots connect directly to any compliant server, fostering decentralized deployment but exposing them to unvetted channels and anonymous joins. Web and app-based bots, however, function within enclosed ecosystems governed by single providers, enforcing user verification, APIs, and ecosystem rules that reduce unauthorized access but limit cross-platform portability. This IRC openness historically enabled rapid bot proliferation for tasks like or but also facilitated unchecked replication in adversarial contexts, unlike the gated APIs of modern platforms. Capability-wise, IRC bots are inherently text-only, constrained by the protocol's plain ASCII format (limited to 512 bytes per message as per RFC 1459, updated in RFC 2812), precluding native handling or external notifications like mobile pushes without auxiliary clients. Web scrapers or API-driven bots, by contrast, process / payloads for diverse data extraction and can embed images, files, or links via HTTP, while app bots integrate platform-native features such as reactions, threads, or voice commands. Empirically, IRC bots achieve sub-second latency in chat environments due to direct protocol , outperforming HTTP-based polling for low-volume, synchronous interactions, but they scale poorly for high-data-volume tasks like bulk scraping, where optimizations and asynchronous processing in web/app bots handle terabytes without channel floods. This protocol-bound speed suited IRC's of console-based, always-on servers but renders it obsolete for bandwidth-intensive modern , lacking built-in resumption or queuing absent custom scripting.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on Broader Bot Development

IRC bots introduced centralized command-and-control (C&C) mechanisms that directly shaped early architectures, serving as foundational models for operations. In 1999, PrettyPark emerged as one of the first variants using IRC for backdoor access, enabling attackers to remotely direct infected hosts via dedicated channels for tasks like or distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. This push-based protocol, where bots authenticated to IRC servers and awaited commands, offered simplicity and low overhead but exposed single points of failure, prompting evolution toward more resilient structures like HTTP pull-based C&C and (P2P) networks in botnets such as (2007) and later variants. IRC's role highlighted the raw efficiency of text-protocol for coordinating large-scale compromised systems, influencing the shift to decentralized topologies without inherent safeguards against abuse. The modular scripting paradigms in IRC bots, exemplified by Eggdrop's Tcl-based extensibility released in the mid-1990s, influenced subsequent frameworks by demonstrating event-driven responses to network inputs. Eggdrop's partyline feature allowed inter-bot communication and linking into virtual networks, enabling scripted coordination for logging, moderation, or attacks, which paralleled concepts in later tools for distributed task execution. While direct code forks into modern libraries are sparse, the emphasis on lightweight, interpretable scripts for real-time interaction informed scripting practices in languages like Python for chat and libraries, prioritizing utility in constrained environments over complex . As precursors to automation, IRC bots from the established patterns of algorithmic participation in communal text spaces, from utility functions like user verification to manipulative tactics such as flooding or impersonation. By , bots dominated many IRC channels, automating in ways that foreshadowed social platform bots for content amplification or opinion shaping, without driving formalized ethical constraints in automation design. This progression underscored a from benign channel tools to exploitative networks, emphasizing empirical in adversarial contexts over aspirational ideals.

Persistence in Niche Communities

IRC bots maintain relevance in specialized environments such as (FOSS) development and gaming clans, where networks like facilitate their deployment for tasks including channel moderation and utility services. , oriented toward FOSS projects and peer-directed collaborations, explicitly supports and operates multiple IRC bots accessible via public channels for inquiries. Overall IRC participation has contracted significantly since the , with user counts falling from around 1 million in to approximately 400,000 by , reflecting a shift toward centralized platforms. Niche persistence arises from IRC's protocol-level flexibility, enabling bots to automate persistent functions without intermediary corporate dependencies. IRCv3 extensions ratified in 2022, including Bot Mode in April, allow bots to self-identify via mode characters and tags, streamlining their distinction from human clients in mixed environments. These updates, alongside SASL authentication enhancements in network implementations as of November 2022, bolster bot security through early credential verification, reducing exposure in long-running sessions. Such adaptations underscore low mainstream uptake contrasted with sustained utility in oversight-free niches, where decentralized servers evade the and shifts driving broader protocol .

References

  1. https://www.irchelp.org/misc/botfaq.html
  2. https://techbeamers.com/irc-bot-explained/
  3. https://www.contentbot.ai/blog/news/a-brief-history-of-the-bot/
  4. https://abusix.com/blog/bots-and-how-theyve-shaped-the-internet/
  5. https://github.com/davisonio/awesome-irc
  6. https://www.xda-developers.com/irc-predates-internet-directly-influences/
  7. https://www.zscaler.com/blogs/security-research/irc-botnets-alive-effective-evolving
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241677624_The_evolution_of_malicious_IRC_bots
  9. https://github.com/bagder/irchistory
  10. https://daniel.haxx.se/irchistory.html
  11. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jyrkialakuijala_i-wrote-the-worlds-first-social-media-bot-activity-7388186312798826496-ckL8
  12. https://www.eggheads.org/
  13. https://docs.eggheads.org/
  14. https://github.com/eggheads/eggdrop
  15. https://www.fastly.com/learning/bots/what-is-the-history-of-bots
  16. https://www.radware.com/security/ddos-knowledge-center/ddos-chronicles/ddos-attacks-history/
  17. https://lira.epac.to/DOCS-TECH/Security/Internet%2520Advanced%2520Denial%2520of%2520Service%2520%28DDOS%29%2520Attack/0131475738/ch03lev1sec3.html
  18. https://d-nb.info/1189431769/34
  19. https://www.usenix.org/event/hotbots07/tech/full_papers/grizzard/grizzard.pdf
  20. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?Name=Backdoor:Win32/IRCbot
  21. https://www.virusbulletin.com/conference/vb2005/abstracts/evolution-irc-bots/
  22. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2812
  23. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1459.html
  24. https://modern.ircdocs.horse/
  25. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2813
  26. https://github.com/jstoker/Pseudo-Server
  27. https://wiki.tcl-lang.org/page/Eggdrop
  28. https://www.wholok.com/irc/
  29. http://poe.perl.org/?POE_Cookbook/IRC_Bots
  30. https://ejrh.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/irc-bot-as-a-fun-project/
  31. https://www.pluralsight.com/resources/blog/cloud/creating-an-irc-bot-with-python3
  32. https://github.com/sbp/phenny
  33. https://pypi.org/project/supybot/
  34. https://docs.limnoria.net/develop/commands.html
  35. https://sourceforge.net/projects/supybot/
  36. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/irc-hacks/059600687X/ch06.html
  37. https://docs.limnoria.net/use/plugins/index.html
  38. https://www.efnet.org/?module=docs&doc=9
  39. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/irc-hacks/059600687X/ch05.html
  40. https://brajeshwar.com/2025/irc-bots-to-ai-agents-automations-first-playground/
  41. https://irc-chess.sourceforge.net/
  42. https://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?threads/irc-bot-commands.4025/
  43. https://sourceforge.net/projects/zxormafiabot/
  44. https://github.com/uncled1023/IRCBot
  45. https://www.wired.com/1996/04/netbots/
  46. https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-07/Nazario/Paper/bh-dc-07-Nazario-WP.pdf
  47. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/malicious-mobile-code/156592682X/ch07s05.html
  48. https://www.undernet.org/training/
  49. https://ftp.unpad.ac.id/orari/library/library-sw-hw/linux-1/HONEYPOTS/honeywall/docs/Know%2520your%2520Enemy%2520Tracking%2520Botnets.htm
  50. https://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/12th/12th_worldwide_infrastructure_security_report.pdf
  51. http://www.geocities.ws/hackerhellas/irc4.htm
  52. https://www.virusbulletin.com/virusbulletin/2012/01/dissecting-ngr-bot-framework-irc-botnets-die-hard
  53. https://www.virusbulletin.com/uploads/pdf/magazine/2012/201201.pdf
  54. https://www.devx.com/terms/eggdrop/
  55. https://litux.nl/mirror/irchacks/059600687X/irchks-CHP-12-SECT-6.html
  56. https://clients.sisrv.net/knowledgebase/29/Using-Your-Eggdrop.html
  57. https://wiki.eggheads.org/index.php/Channel_Administration
  58. https://gist.github.com/1006469
  59. https://docs.eggheads.org/using/users.html
  60. https://docs.eggheads.org/using/botnet.html
  61. https://mircx.forumotion.net/t74-guide-all-commands-and-flags-eggdrop
  62. https://docs.eggheads.org/modules/mod/channels.html
  63. https://github.com/MichaelDaum/irc-anti-spam
  64. https://github.com/gehaxelt/python-rss2irc
  65. https://0day.work/securityfeed-security-rss-2-irc/
  66. http://www.tclarchive.org/search.php?Top
  67. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14089673/python-irc-bot-system-uptime
  68. https://docs.buildbot.net/3.11.5/manual/configuration/reporters/irc.html
  69. http://www.geekshed.net/2011/04/setting-a-channel-entry-message/
  70. https://dev.w3.org/2007/chad/README.cvs
  71. https://github.com/jhuckaby/simplebot
  72. http://cntbot.org/commands.html.en
  73. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/irc-hacks/059600687X/ch11.html
  74. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/Guidelines
  75. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA602746.pdf
  76. https://wiki.debian.org/IRC
  77. https://www.undernet.org/docs/noflood
  78. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sruti05/tech/full_papers/cooke/cooke.pdf
  79. https://www.albany.edu/~goel/publications/botnetbookchapter.pdf
  80. https://people.engr.tamu.edu/guofei/paper/Gu_NDSS08_botSniffer.pdf
  81. http://www.mirlabs.org/jias/secured/Volume6-Issue6/Paper53.pdf
  82. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi333
  83. https://securemyorg.com/the-evolution-of-botnets/
  84. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/bot-roast-ii-nets-8-individuals
  85. https://www.mirc.com/ircintro.html
  86. https://www.euirc.net/en/modes.php
  87. https://libera.chat/guides/channelmodes
  88. https://old.freenode.net/kb/answer/channelmodes
  89. https://docs.inspircd.org/tutorials/prevent-spam/
  90. https://www.unrealircd.org/docs/Cloaking
  91. https://forums.unrealircd.org/viewtopic.php?t=8717
  92. https://studfile.net/preview/3022257/page:6/
  93. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation/20/
  94. https://push.cx/discord-vs-irc-notes
  95. https://emersion.fr/blog/2022/irc-and-oauth2/
  96. https://blog.axway.com/learning-center/digital-security/keys-oauth/api-keys-oauth
  97. https://gbl08ma.com/i-really-like-discord-its-a-monster/
  98. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40948232
  99. https://www.devopsdigest.com/api-security-why-oauth-isnt-enough-and-what-to-do-about-it
  100. https://lobste.rs/s/l7u1j4/discord_vs_irc_rough_notes
  101. https://medium.com/novasemita/online-learning-communities-slack-v-s-discord-9f290a69f51a
  102. https://ircv3.net/wg
  103. https://www.slant.co/versus/4557/5637/~irc_vs_discord
  104. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29862550
  105. https://www.reddit.com/r/irc/comments/1lv3d3g/whats_the_current_state_of_irc/
  106. https://www.ilmarilauhakangas.fi/irc_technology_news_from_the_second_half_of_2023/
  107. https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/2440/why-do-botnets-use-irc-but-not-a-web-service-for-communication
  108. https://hackernoon.com/how-slack-ate-irc-and-what-we-miss-about-it
  109. https://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~czou/research/P2PBotnets-bookChapter.pdf
  110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-media-and-democracy/bots-and-computational-propaganda-automation-for-communication-and-control/A15EE25C278B442EF00199AA660BFADD
  111. https://libera.chat/guides/bots
  112. https://libera.chat/
  113. https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/06/irc-has-lost-60-of-its-users-since-2003-but-life-as-a-robot-is-just-beginning/
  114. https://ircv3.net/specs/extensions/bot-mode
  115. https://ircv3.net/2022/11/20/spec-round-up.html
  116. https://www.synirc.net/news/2022/11/network-upgrades
  117. https://www.pingdom.com/blog/irc-is-dead-long-live-irc/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.