1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UYHVJ-0006Ok-7D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UYHVI-0004pB-Gg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i10so467177oag.29
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 03 May 2013 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.62.70 with SMTP id w6mr3201514oer.38.1367593347148; Fri,
03 May 2013 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 08:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130503141801.GA1301@petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3FA-5z3gAC1aYbG2EOKM2eDyv7zX3S9+ia2ZJ0LPkKiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjz8SbqU=2YXrXzwzmvz+NUbokD6KbPwZ5QAXSqCdi++g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2X9A0kBvN8=+G+dn_uqbSYfNhw7dm4od_yfJqDUoxHWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgz2pLOkc3WL1sG3pJpdVqUZRwEfO9YaC-62vQyWLLW2Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2aaOyv4U12-moux--OhZQdK7rXC24YN61o6LQ0a+bK6g@mail.gmail.com>
<20130503141801.GA1301@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:02:26 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OKn5dZdDuR9URhrzzIjn32i-d50
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0mRW-QW60JJmon3ATuoTGnZSFFMne9Dv7FnVnP49GXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UYHVI-0004pB-Gg
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 -0000
--089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> If you're going to take a step like that, the <current-chain-height>
> should be rounded off, perhaps to some number of bits, or you'll allow
> DNS caching to be defeated.
>
Don't the seeds already set small times? I'm not sure we want these
responses to be cacheable, otherwise there's a risk of a wall of traffic
suddenly showing up at one set of nodes if a large ISP caches a response.
(yes yes, I know, SPV node should be remembering addr broadcasts and such).
--089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If you're going to take a step like that=
, the <current-chain-height><br>
should be rounded off, perhaps to some number of bits, or you'll allow<=
br>
DNS caching to be defeated.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Don&#=
39;t the seeds already set small times? I'm not sure we want these resp=
onses to be cacheable, otherwise there's a risk of a wall of traffic su=
ddenly showing up at one set of nodes if a large ISP caches a response. (ye=
s yes, I know, SPV node should be remembering addr broadcasts and such).</d=
iv>
<div style><br></div></div></div></div>
--089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f--
|
