[RC5] DES 2 (in preparation of)

Mary Conner trif at serv.net
Fri Jan 9 05:15:08 EST 1998



On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Colin L. Hildinger wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:23:27 -0800 (PST), Mary Conner wrote:
> 
> >I think I'm going to hunt down and shoot the next person who sends
> >something both to me and the list.
> 
> I'll give you directions to my house.  :)  As long as it's set up
> bass-ackwards like it is now expect a lot of it. If I hit reply it only
> goes to you, if I hit reply to all you get two friggin' copies. 
> Welcome to the hell of no "reply-to" in the header.  I warned people. 
> And no, I'm not going to go remove a person from the address list every
> damn time I send a message, sorry.

Fine.  When you send those directions, maybe you can make sure you
send them only to me and NOT to the damned list as well.  And when
they say why, I'll be sure to tell them, "I warned him."  Everybody
knows that excuses anything.  We'll be sure to put "Beloved Son and
Inconsiderate Asshole" on your tombstone.  *I* did not ask for this
stupid "reply-to" change, but I am not so damned lazy I can't push
a few keys to make sure you only receive one copy of my pithy words.

> Yeah, well, I certainly understand your point here.  I do think that
> putting a little more delay in between redistributing space will make
> it more likely to not happen.  Possibly there's a way to make the
> client deal with it?  FIFO would be one way but I think that would
> cause problems with people using it on a shared network directory since
> it would no longer just be a stack.  If it was FIFO then new blocks
> would have to be added at the beginning of the buff-out file or blocks
> for checking would have to be taken from the beginning.  I could see
> this causing problems if there were many clients sharing it and it was
> updating from the servers, etc.  Anyone else got any other ideas for
> how the client could solve it w/o people manually cleaning out old
> buff-in files by one of the methods discussed here earlier?

How about if people are so freaked out about having their clients possibly
doing random blocks that they cannot see fit to let the in-buffer exhaust
itself normally, they set up and run a personal proxy, which *is* FIFO
and which will take care of that little problem nicely.  I'm aware that
pproxies only exist for some platforms, but those platforms cover most
of the machines doing rc5 out there, and frequently those running
machines that don't have a pproxy available have another machine that
they could run a pproxy on.  Now, once those people are taken care
of, how many people are left who have no potential to run a pproxy?
If a mac pproxy is written, then how many are left?  Are there enough
to justify having all the clients rewritten just because a few people
out there can't stand the thought of their clients doing random blocks?

Trif
Official Insomniac
Official dbaker Irritant


--
To unsubcribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at llamas.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list