To: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: re PIPELINING 
In-reply-to: Your message of "07 Mar 1996 03:22:39 GMT."
             <19960307032239.15920.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 19:51:47 -0800
From: michael.derrico@software.com (Michael D'Errico)
Message-ID: <19960307035149.AAA4436@rome.software.com>

> > Until you learn to address the rest of us in a civil manner and with
> > respect for conflicting opinions,
> 
> I respect conflicting opinions, Mark. However, I don't respect
> unjustified technical bullshit, from you (``does not scale'') or from
> anyone else (``that's ridiculous'').

Since you are referring to my ``that's ridiculous,'' I will respond this last 
time.  If you refer back to the first message I posted in response to this 
thread, you will see that I stated my assumption about what you are doing and 
concluded that if, in fact, you were doing things that way, it was a 
ridiculous thing to do.  I think even you would agree with that.

All you had to do was correct my assumption about what you do, and we might 
have been done with it.  Instead, you responded with no facts whatsoever, 
accused me of having a ``serial view of the universe,'' and demanded an 
apology.  I see no reason for anybody to take you seriously when that's how 
you act.

I still believe there are technical problems with your approach so I wouldn't 
implement it myself, and I think the current wording in the draft is fine.  
In addition, I may now be forced to put a protection mechanism in my own 
server to limit the number of simultaneous connections from any one host, 
just in case it is running qmail.  Perhaps the section on Security 
Considerations can be modified to that effect???

Mike