Btw, this is now fixed in CVS in several ways. 1. if iconv doesn't recognize the charset, just write out the raw text. 2. wrote a parser for windows-[cp]#### charsets and convert them to the iconv-friendly format of cp####. I love iconv suckage... 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
