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