Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!chris From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: 4.2bsd IPC interface Message-ID: <1979@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 02:53:13 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1979 Posted: Fri Oct 25 02:53:13 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 06:19:10 EDT References: <2192@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1009@oddjob.UUCP> <1976@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 9 Now that I have proposed a mechanism for doing delayed accepts, I would like to state that I personally see no need for them. I think that all protocols should have some `rejection' messages, more detailed than a simple `connection refused'. If you are unwilling to talk to a host, you should at least be willing to tell it why not. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu