Kevin L. Mitchell writes:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 10:58 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > BTW, is this a change we should stick into .13, or are you comfortable
>> > with development of this in .12.pre10?
>>
>> The trie code should be .13-only, but that is orthogonal to the
>> changes you propose.
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 10:58 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > BTW, is this a change we should stick into .13, or are you comfortable
> > with development of this in .12.pre10?
>
> The trie code should be .13-only, but that is orthogonal to the
> changes you propose. If you have no objections, I wou
Kevin L. Mitchell writes:
>> things i forgot to say in my email:
>> glines with no listed lifetime have lifetime == expiration
>> and, as is (mostly) done now, incoming glines with no listed
>> lastmod are treated as being more recent than any existing gline
>> and i'd suggest that we don'
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:03 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > In addition to adding a second expiration time, I propose to remove the
> > logic that deletes overlapping G-lines, if it's still present in the
> > server. It just seems to cause too much trouble, and the G-lines will
> > expire of their
Kevin L. Mitchell writes:
> There are some changes I'd like to make to the server<->server protocol
> for G-lines. The first is, since GNUWorld generates the lastmod
> parameter, I wish to do away with the 3-parameter form of G-line. This
> will hopefully simplify ms_gline() a bit. The second i
There are some changes I'd like to make to the server<->server protocol
for G-lines. The first is, since GNUWorld generates the lastmod
parameter, I wish to do away with the 3-parameter form of G-line. This
will hopefully simplify ms_gline() a bit. The second is to solve a
problem with G-line, a
