Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA12646; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:50:08 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA12597; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from edelweb.fr (edelweb.fr [193.51.12.16]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id FAA12578; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from champagne.edelweb.fr (champagne.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.161]) by edelweb.fr with ESMTP id LAA20011 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:50:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from sylvest@localhost) by champagne.edelweb.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA27732 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:50:00 +0200 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:50:00 +0200 From: Peter Sylvester Message-Id: <199808070950.LAA27732@champagne.edelweb.fr> To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues > > Peter Sylvester writes: > > what happens today is a bunch of error messages > > telling that maybe the other end might not have the > > OK for the DATA. > > Wrong. Once the server receives QUIT, it knows that the client received > the acknowledgment. Subsequent closes are irrelevant. I said: XXX Why do send QUIT at all? Would the server be in a position XXX to throw away the already received AND acknowledged message? XXX I hope not, what happens today is a bunch of error messages XXX telling that maybe the other end might not have the XXX OK for the DATA.