Discussion:
RFC1393?
(too old to reply)
der Mouse
2008-03-03 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
It appears to me that our IP stack does not support RFC1393. Do we
want to change this? Or am I misled, and we do support it?

/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML ***@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Robert Elz
2008-03-03 17:37:41 UTC
Permalink
1393 is an experimental protcol which wouldn't even get that far if
it were being proposed now (rather than 15 years ago when no-one much
cared about things like amplification attacks).

Just forget it.

kre

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Ignatios Souvatzis
2008-03-04 08:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Elz
1393 is an experimental protcol which wouldn't even get that far if
it were being proposed now (rather than 15 years ago when no-one much
cared about things like amplification attacks).
Just forget it.
After reading it: I agree. While it is not necessarily a bad idea,
making the address to send the answer to different from the source
address of the header is asking for trouble.

-is

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Loading...