=- James Cameron wrote on Sun 24.Feb'08 at 21:55:59 +1100 -=

> You've lost me. What is not about blocking disobedience? Why is
> disobedience mentioned?

"there's no reason to block them if they don't use {solicitation}."

The reason for my inquiry is to get rid of permanently downed
servers once identified as such, solicitors or not, and I'd like to
know what reasons speak against it.

You've put it as if anyone wanted (or believed this about others) to
block those not obedient to the request to switch to solicitation.
That's not true.
If there indeed were the intention to make all switch, I'd have
expected those asking for it to support those candidates to
accelerate the transition and then get rid of static lists.
That was before I learned there were persistent problems requiring

If solicitation were so uncritical, why were Paradise servers urged
to implement it rather than just getting relisted as before?

> > > No, that's not how it works. The server does not send any
> > > packet to the metaserver until it has players join.
> > 
> > Uh... why is _that_?
> Defective design or implementation.
> > How should an empty server get players in the first place then?
> It can only get players if someone logs into it manually first.
> This should change. Please care enough to change it rather than
> keep a mail thread alive.

Well, you could contribute your part to it by not simply publicating
what you know in the for you most minimalistic possible way, but
consider what's helpful, given the direction I was asking.
 A mere comment that "this works this way but it's not intended
behaviour" would have saved both our times.

Given the past of requests and decisions about acceptance and
denials I had reason to believe that only what is approved is let in
and kept for some reason. Before breaking that with a change to _my_
liking I want to know what there is more than I could think about
why things are as they are.

For the record if you still haven't noticed: I care for change.
But I can't change all by myself, because of lack of time or
knowledge. I can not afford reading all code lines to get the big
picture and _guess_ intentions or reasons.

> Yet how can we implement a way to delist that cannot be easily
> abused by attackers? Source IP address is trivially forged.

By listing only those soliciting continuously and responding when
checked after a timeout.

> > I see you joined 2 mails, yet you cut off what's more
> > interesting: whether my suggestion to fix the "drop dead
> > servers" problem is adequate.
> Yes, I cut it off, because it didn't apply, it wasn't in a format
> recognised by patch(1), try again.
> > My suggestion was to let metaserver update solicitors
> > proactively when they haven't updated for a timelimit, then
> > depending on the forced check let things update, potentially
> > delisting the server, see "nuke_server" checking for
> > solicitation servers to remove them when disconnected.
> Sounds good, but I'd need to see a patch, thanks.

I gave it.
A "patch(1)"-able format wouldn't give you any more information than
I gave you already.

You act like an unflexible robot -> not helpful for change.
Facts alone don't help, but reasoning behind it and consideration of
If you don't want to give that, then save both our times.

Facts of how things are can be figured out, but background on how
things came to be are not always recorded next to the facts.

You like to keep it simple for yourself, but you overdo it at times,
and then blame me for catching up with what you missed to add.
Discussion is not a contest about the shortest answer, but a desire
to proceed together.
Nobody is perfect, everyone can improve.

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.