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
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from
<SRS0=mO9GJ4Zk=UG=jerviss.org=bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>)
id 1Vacx6-00050m-LR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:53:12 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from serv.jerviss.org ([12.47.47.47] helo=inana.jerviss.org)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Vacx5-00039Q-Jo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:53:12 +0000
Received: from [10.8.2.254] ([192.151.168.109])
(username: kjj authenticated by PLAIN symmetric_key_bits=0)
by inana.jerviss.org (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r9S2qv2o028874
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:53:03 -0500
Message-ID: <526DD18A.7060201@jerviss.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:52:58 -0500
From: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
References: <274a1888-276c-4aa6-a818-68f548fbe0fa@me.com> <9DCDB8F6-E3B2-426B-A41E-087E66B3821A@gmail.com> <526B45DB.2030200@jerviss.org>
<CABsx9T2OMA_u=S9yUh2j78QDuCDUorYctktuixjwAjqc6neW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2OMA_u=S9yUh2j78QDuCDUorYctktuixjwAjqc6neW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------050804060402000507010002"
Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 192.151.168.109 is authenticated by a
trusted mechanism)
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Vacx5-00039Q-Jo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:53:12 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050804060402000507010002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Any reason not to use actual HTTP codes? I'm not aware of any major
deficiency in them. Most of them won't apply to us, which is fine, they
don't seem to apply to HTTP either. We can extend the scheme on our own
if we find a good reason to.
That implies 16 bits, or a varint. I would avoid a string or varstring
here; we already have a text field. Varint vs. 16 bits is a minor
issue, and arguments can be made in both directions. I flipped a coin
and got heads, so I'll say varint.
Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: use HTTP-like status codes:
>
> Okey dokey, I'll add a one-byte machine-readable HTTP-like status
> code. Unless y'all want a 32-bit status code. Or maybe a varint. Or a
> three-character numeric string. I really and truly don't care, but I
> am writing this code right now so whatever you want, decide quickly.
>
> If anybody has strong feelings about what the reject categories should
> be, then please take the time to write a specific list, I can't read
> your mind....
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--------------050804060402000507010002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Any reason not to use actual HTTP
codes? I'm not aware of any major deficiency in them. Most of
them won't apply to us, which is fine, they don't seem to apply to
HTTP either. We can extend the scheme on our own if we find a
good reason to.<br>
<br>
That implies 16 bits, or a varint. I would avoid a string or
varstring here; we already have a text field. Varint vs. 16 bits
is a minor issue, and arguments can be made in both directions. I
flipped a coin and got heads, so I'll say varint.<br>
<br>
Gavin Andresen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABsx9T2OMA_u=S9yUh2j78QDuCDUorYctktuixjwAjqc6neW=Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">RE: use HTTP-like status codes:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Okey dokey, I'll add a one-byte machine-readable HTTP-like
status code. Unless y'all want a 32-bit status code. Or maybe
a varint. Or a three-character numeric string. I really and
truly don't care, but I am writing this code right now so
whatever you want, decide quickly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If anybody has strong feelings about what the reject
categories should be, then please take the time to write a
specific list, I can't read your mind....</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
--<br>
Gavin Andresen<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050804060402000507010002--
|
