>> Others may know more, but ISTR that the option is relevant for
>> on-the-wire interoperability with 4.2BSD derived legacy OSes.
> No, it really isn't.  Everyone fixed these bugs decades ago -- and I
> mean *decades*.

And, of course, we all know that everyone promptly switched over to the
fixed versions.

> You seem to believe there are pure 4.2 stacks still out there, but
> there aren't.

I don't believe you have the evidence to back that up.  I don't believe
anyone can.  There simply is no way to know what is still running in
legacy applications.  There are PDP-11s still out there; heck, I think
there are still PDP-8s out there.  I'd be astonished if there weren't
4.2 stacks still in live use.

> If you had such a stack, it couldn't communicate over the internet.

Not communicating with the Internet at large, no.  So?  Are you under
the delusion that that is the only networking going on?  Surely you
know better than that.

> If a machine had said bugs, it would be impossible for any modern
> machine to speak to it anyway.

All the more reason to have the compatability option, so that we can
distinguish ourselves from the pack by being able to speak with it!

If you don't want backward compatbaility, you know where to not find
it.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B