In my humble opinion:
RENAME was a bad idea, and should be removed from the protocol.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If the client does the "!=" test instead of the ">=" test, then it's a
>> client that allows more than the RFC allows. I'm not quite sure of the
>> implications of this, but I can not imagine why a client would use "!="
>> instead of ">=".
>
> I can't i
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 09:24, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> So what you're saying is that cacheing the time(NULL) value and keeping it
> in one single-point-of-failure file will solve the problem? How is this
> different from calling time(NULL)?
time(NULL) doesn't guarantee unique UIDVALIDITY if
