At 2:25 PM -0700 8/16/11, Ned Freed wrote:
This is something that is so broken I think the best course is to
reject it. Hopefully the sender will notice and fix their bug.
Not sure rejecting is such a great idea...
Right -- I didn't actually mean "reject" but rather "not try and
correct for". There will be a valid (partial) message and a slew of
Another way to handle this on the receiving end is not to peek but
to do a hard
disconnect after some small number of bad commands are seen.
This seems like a reasonable approach.
The result will be a series of duplicate partial
messages for the receiver and a series of transmission failures for
The duplicates will no doubt be annoying, but this has the advantage that it
doesn't cause damage when this particular set of symptoms are the result of a
different underlying problem.
And, hopefully, someone will notice the repeated failures and/or the
repeated partial messages and fix the bug.
Meh. I think this may be one where trying to compensate for this on
the server end is a poor substitute for tracking down whoever is
contacting them and urging them to fix the problem.
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
razbliuto (ros-blee-OO-toe; Russian; noun): the feeling a person
retains for someone he or she once loved.