TCP problems with 2.0.x

[rodney at sabletech.com (Rodney Thayer)]

because when the intervening internet, or the ISP, or the machine at the
client end decided to go into an inappropriately quiescient state you get
some kicks that have a chance of getting it out of that state.

obviously this depends on what the code does in keepalive processing (for
example, is it smart enough to react to a returning "port unreachable" icmp
message)

Trust me, it would be more preferrable than what I do to the poor support
people at my ISP when POP3 decides to hose up in my face (right, Rich?)

At 01:51 AM 8/17/96 -0000, you wrote:
>
>
>Rodney Thayer wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
>
> RT> Rich Braun was talking about TCP problems.  Does anyone know
> RT> if the servers involved (like POP3D) use the TCP Keepalive
> RT> option?  should they?  could they? 
>
>POP is inherently message granular.  Why bother with keepalive?
> 
>-- Mike
>
>
>

               Rodney Thayer <rodney at sabletech.com>       +1 617 332 7292
               Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA
               Fax: +1 617 332 7970           http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           "Developers of communications software"