Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client

[Klaus Weide]

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Gregory A Lundberg wrote:

> > > [ C->S ] RETR /
> > 
> 
> I _could_ implement this.  What do you think Lynx would do if I sent you a
> tarball?  

To answer the question, even though it's probably rhetorical:

It would do the same as it would for any other succesful RETR.  It would 
believe that that the data that you are sending is valid representation
of the given URL.  Since the URL didn't end in ".tar.gz" or similar, it
will by default assume that what you are sending is "text/plain" and will
treat it accordingly, just if you had named your tarball "foo.txt"
instead of "foo.tar.gz".


> Any client which issues a PORT command but is not ready to accept the
> connection is hopelessly broken.

I assume you mean "accept the connection _after_ the next retrieval
command.  I also assume with "accept" you mean something more than
having called accept() [?]

How many clients do you know that are hopelessly broken according to this
definition?  How many that are not hopelessly broken?  

   Klaus