Hi -
> > That suggests one timeout could be sufficient - the progress timeout
> > you the one you found - just not too short and not too fast.
>
> How about the attached (untested) patch?
That looks good, though I'd bump up the 60s -> 120s to give it a big
margin over already-observed
Hi Frank,
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 08:38:59PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Yeah, a connection timeout per se is probably not really worth having.
> A URL having unreasolvable hosts will fail immediately. A reachable
> http server that is fairly busy will connect, just take time. The
> only
