> So, the version of my patch for 2.0.34 didn't need to fix this any
> more. Of course, future updates of the patch I was making based on
> the latest one, and never bothered to check for this bug again.
>
> Now, after your post, I am looking at patch-2.0.35.gz:
>
> - return 0;
> + return 1;
>
> So, the "feature" got re-introduced in 2.0.35. I don't know of the
> reason for this. I can only guess that the other major TCP changes
It was put back into 2.0.35 because the "fix" caused interoperability
problems with many other stacks.
Alan
