Unfortunately, the 'critics' of the the 'keepalive' discussion here don't
seem to understand the problem..
Don't you think that requirement of mandatory keep-alive support in RFC
will create, in consequence, extremely powerful source of DOS?
Sometimes the server NEEDS to take longer than the very short non-standard
timeout allowed by these client to decide whether to accept the message or
not.
Can you give some real world example?
NB I do not consider any anti-spam system as such example.
I wonder how many system administrators who have set short timeouts have
actually looked at how many unnecessary re-sends are taking place because
of it.
Can you precise me what do you consider to be "short timeouts" ?
TBP