On Thu, 6 May 2010, Brian Hayden wrote:
Reliable does not mean "does not fail".
Coincidentally, nobody said it did. Interesting!
If that was not your meaning in claiming that "TCP is not reliable", then
you don't know what you are talking about.
TCP is most certainly reliable.
This is another fun historical dissertation, at whose core is: "change the
RFCs, and until then maintain some righteous anger."
I go to the trouble to teach you how things actually work, and you respond
with a typical nihilistic Gen-X retort.
The righteous thing is to follow the specifications; and if you think that
the specifications are incorrect then work to get them changed. You're
the one who seems to be angrily insisting that the specifications
shouldn't be followed.
And then to make stupid statements such as "TCP is not reliable".
That is quite a sleight of hand there. It makes your pats on the heads of
the "young'ns" look even sillier. You've oversimplified [2[ to the point
where it edges from "oversimplified" to "misleading."
Pshaw. So you want to bring up Linux's "half-duplex" close behavior, eh?
That's irrelevant to RST in IMAP sessions.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw@u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
