Jonathan Stone <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu> wrote:

> But, not only did you make those mistakes, you started off by whining
> that NetBSD had a bug, that it was not conformant with SUSv3.  But
> there's no technical reason to *ever* claim the current behaviour is
> in violation of standards.  None at all.  Yet you repeatedly made that
> claim, even after the standard had been quoted to you.

The quote was useless, as I did read the standard before opening the PR.
It seems there was enough room for misinterpreting it, or maybe I'm just
too uneducated to read that kind of document. Since other persons felt
into the pitfall and misinterpreted it, I'd choose the first
explanation.

Now not everyone agree that there is nothing to fix. But don't worry, I
won't fight on that front. I did not open this PR because I wanted
NetBSD to be modified to fit my taste, I did it because I thought there
was something that could be improved in NetBSD. I don't care that much
if the thing is really a problem, or if it gets fixed or not. 

No whining here, I just tried to help the project on my leisure time. As
a reward I get flammage. That's not the kind of leisure I enjoy. I'll
just leave that problem and do something else more rewarding.   
 
> Any application which exhibits such behaviour not just over unicast,
> but over multicast, is (by definition) a distributed denial-of-service
> tool.  Using it in the wider Internet might well leave one liable to
> criminal charges in various jursidictions. Or cause one's upstream ISP
> to cut off service. (Or both).

What people do with multicast on their own LAN and with TTL = 1 is not
your business. Please stop whining about it, that's getting rude.  

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
manu@netbsd.org