On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:14:45AM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:48:57 +0200 Magnus wrote: > MF> This patch s about accepting agentx packages where the first 20 bytes are > MF> mangled, could someone elaborate on what is wrong about it? > > Who says there is anything wrong with it? There is no comment indicating it was > rejected. > > If you are simply wondering why it hasn't been applied, then you need to > remember that we all do this in our spare time. Please be patient.
Thank's. I'll do so. Is there anything I can do to speed up the process (more than to keep quiet so that you can review patches instead of answering silly emails)? > Also, bugs that are for extraordinary conditions are much lower priority than > other issues. We strongly recommend running AgentX over UNIX sockets, on the > same host, where partial PDUs should not occur. Agreed. > Also I'd argue that you shouldn't expect a response to a partial packet/PDU. > I think dropping the packet is a perfectly reasonable response. I will agree that I shouldn't expect a response on a partial PDU, but I do think that when the PDU is complemented to be complete then I should get a response, and I utterly fail to see why we should drop partial PDU's of less than 20 bytes but allow longer ones. /MF ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
