Please refrain from attaching messages that crash Evolution to messages
sent to this list. PLEASE.
It is much more appreciated when these type messages are gzipped before
being attached to prevent everyone and their brother from crashing
trying to read mail.
Thanks,
Jeff
On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 12:56, Rick Ziegler wrote:
> The forwarded message is consistently crashing the latest RH 6.2
> RedCarpet snapshot.
>
> --
> Richard Ziegler
> Release Engineer / ClearCase Administrator
> (617) 503-0442
> CertCo Inc.
> ----
>
> From: Cristian Marinescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Question about TSP (rfc 3161)
> Date: 13 Sep 2001 16:27:30 +0200
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree, there is in practice (at least for the moment,
> when everyone is trying to put a TSA together, more or less
> draft compliant), no reason for having such flags.
>
> But, it is also not stupid.
> Let's imagine that some day the TSP will be really used
> by everyone. :) Hard to imagine, but let's try.
> This will rise the problem of DOS attack, and some
> people, (as I have done myself) will implement the TSA
> and limit the number of parallel requests (and let's understand
> by this the number of spawn processes, or threads) to a fix number. So
> they will
> just return an error back. This is actually not a nice thing
> to do. And I presume, people there, writing the draft,
> tried to be nice: well, if I get a request, but,
> I don't have time to give a response right away, because
> I am busy, let's store the request and tell the person to try
> again sometimes later.
> Perhaps there is also the possibility
> that your clock is at that moment not available, (I would
> like to believe that there will be TSA's out there that won't read
> the time from the local system, like I do at the moment...) or maybe
> some
> other resource... how could I know?? :)
> In any case you have to take cautions about the overflooding with
> requests (or even pending requests, that havn't been answered yet)
>
> Well, at least this is the reason I can imagine. Perhaps
> there are also some other (dark!) reasons, but I would like
> to hear/read about them from the TSP gurus. :))
>
> Kindly regards,
> Cristian
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 12. September 2001 10:19
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Question about TSP (rfc 3161)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I would like to know what are the reasons for introducing the
> > flags "pollReq",
> > "pollResp" and "negPollRep" in the socket based protocol
> > (section 3.3).
> >
> >
> > It would mean that a tsa server can divide the der code he
> > calculated for the
> > response. But why would it do that?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Libel
> >
> >
> > --
> > Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at
> http://Nameplanet.com/?su
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
>
> iQA/AwUBO6C0P8V5iyNCxCiSEQL9aQCg/DF+dzS6QV+dLFvVV6HTNTF3xvgAoOaZ
> GSkggGhyqVBA6fFIRTnn+4bu
> =FFSm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
