> So, the version of my patch for 2.0.34 didn't need to fix this any > more. Of course, future updates of the patch I was making based on > the latest one, and never bothered to check for this bug again. > > Now, after your post, I am looking at patch-2.0.35.gz: > > - return 0; > + return 1; > > So, the "feature" got re-introduced in 2.0.35. I don't know of the > reason for this. I can only guess that the other major TCP changes It was put back into 2.0.35 because the "fix" caused interoperability problems with many other stacks. Alan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:55:14 PDT