Sure, but we need a patch for the reject behavior then. On Mar 26, 2012 11:55 AM, "Michel Pelletier" <pelletier.mic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to provide both behaviors (reject, autoid) switched > with a socket option? > > -Michel > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Chuck Remes <li...@chuckremes.com> > wrote: > > > >> FYI, this patch was rejected by crossroads-io. They prefer it be > handled by > >> closing the offending connection rather than silently allowing it to > connect > >> but with an auto identity. > > > > The problem here is that the protocol is unable to report errors back. > > (We're running on an amateurish protocol, sadly.) > > > > So if you're facing a buggy client, you can't help it in any way. > > Closing the connection won't help (it'll just retry). Asserting in the > > server is pathological. Switching to an automatic identity isn't great > > either. > > > > If you're facing a hostile client, switching to an automatic identity > > is a decent strategy since it'll keep the client busy. > > > > -Pieter > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
