On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:30 -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> > Note: "B" however cannot ignore that message. It _MUST_ rewrite
> > it. It's not acceptable for UID 6 to refer to a different message on
> > each host. After that replication, a request for UID 6 must fail.
>
> No; my terminology ("
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:56:38AM -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
> I understand what you're saying about duplicates now. You're saying,
> worst case scenario, UID 6 is downloaded twice- once as UID 6 and
> the second time as UID 9.
Yes. In particular, we can't cheat the gods of mathematics -- we'r
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:43 -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> > Nevertheless the problem still exists:
> > Client is fresh
> > Client connects to A and gets UID 1,2,3,4,5,7
> > Client connects to B and sees EXISTS=6
> > because B sees UID 1,2,3,4,6,7
> > Client will NEVER
