[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Current PING/PONG implementation to violate the RFC

To: ircd-users@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Current PING/PONG implementation to violate the RFC
From: Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:40:37 -0500
Delivered-to: ircd-users-out@irc.org
Delivered-to: ircd-users@irc.org
In-reply-to: <19990209220552.A3444@enterprise.kl.de>; from Kaspar Landsberg on Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 10:05:52PM +0100
Mail-followup-to: ircd-users@irc.org
References: <19990209220552.A3444@enterprise.kl.de>

Q already addressed very well the first part of this long
annoying email :)

On Feb 09, Kaspar Landsberg wrote:
| So could we all PLEASE have a reasonable look at the whole issue and get
| the useful extension of the PING/PONG procedure (as described in the other
| thread) back?

I see no reason to change the behaviour of PING/PONG.

The only possible little glitch is that "daemon" thing you
argued about, in other words not much at all.

Now, can we drop this thread?

Christophe

[PS: the extra : is perfectly correct, read the BNF]

References:
- Current PING/PONG implementation to violate the RFC
  - From: Kaspar Landsberg

Prev by Date: Re: Current PING/PONG implementation to violate the RFC
Next by Date: Re: service design in /TRACE and ircd.conf
Previous by thread: Re: Current PING/PONG implementation to violate the RFC
Next by thread: irc2.10.2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread