On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:54:35PM +0100, Andras Korn wrote: > > > tcp.7 contains bad FUD about syncookies, > > > > I don't see any FUD in there > > Hey, you actually _wrote_ much of the Linux syncookie implementation. Now > I'm really interested in knowing why you changed your mind about them. And > the manpage should definitely include your arguments, if they are valid, > which I still doubt.
Seeing Andi's hostile and dismissive stance in this bug report it seems unlikely that he'd make a useful contribution; however, I'd like to refer the interested reader to this 2008 LWN article: https://lwn.net/Articles/277146/ -- it explains why syncookies are still a good thing to have, Andi's objections notwithstanding. Meanwhile, tcp(7), after all these years, still claims syncookies are "a violation of the TCP protocol", which is still false. Can the maintainer please accept my patch, or tell me how to change it so that it can be accepted? Andras -- Andras Korn <korn at elan.rulez.org> Things were so different before they all changed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
