=- James Cameron wrote on Mon 25.Feb'08 at  9:35:17 +1100 -=

> 2. once all servers have converted to solicitation we may be able
> to deprecate the older mechanism (metaserver connecting to
> server),

Fine, looking forward for it.

> I didn't understand the direction you were asking. I still don't
> understand why you don't just fix it and give me a patch.

If the current behaviour were intentional, I wouldn't need to fix
anything since it is already as it should be. Just because I see an
improvement it doesn't mean I've considered all side effects.

> > A mere comment that "this works this way but it's not intended
> > behaviour" would have saved both our times.
> I thought you would have known this already from our previous
> discussions on other subjects.

Generally speaking: no, see explanation in eMail before (or below).
If you mean something specific, please point it out.

> > Before breaking {what's supposed to be as it is} 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.
> It won't help though ... even if you just provide a patch to match
> your understanding of what should happen, there may be some who
> would fight you over it.

Exactly, that's why I ask in advance, to avoid fighting and/ or
wasting time by hacking unfamiliar code.
I rather spend the little time I can afford on things I can handle
or learn just enough to make a problem go away, not all the code.

> I'm more likely to accept a patch if it has a simple explanation
> of what it fixes.

I don't expect immediate acceptance, but a discussion (at least
about things unknown to me), so I better understand the current
state and how to think about solutions.
Despite being subscribed to the various netrek-places, I'm not aware
of all technical (in-)decisions of the past.

As said, I supposed that what is there and how it is were for a good
reason. It's news to me that it isn't, and I'll keep in mind to
question intention before arguing about it.

Why is conceptually broken code kept and -- worse -- used?
Both filtering/ starting empty servers and dropping dead solicitors
doesn't sound like a big problem.

> Intentions or reasons rarely matter to me. I'm more interested in
> the code, and the future.

You're aware that you're contradicting yourself?
Future == intention/ 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.
> That is almost what is currently implemented, except that servers
> are not contacted after a timeout.

Exactly, that's what I hoped to have patched with the simple code
change suggested.

> > I gave it.
> > A "patch(1)"-able format wouldn't give you any more information
> > than I gave you already.
> It would give the information I need to apply the patch.

You can't replace 1 single line of code (by copy&paste)?

> I will take a patch if I understand it and agree with it.

So, what's the problem understanding with 1 instruction replaced by
another and its location?

> > 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.
> Interesting, but not relevant.

Ok, if you say so.

© 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.