1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>) id 1R4Xz8-0002gJ-Ea
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:57:38 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R4Xz4-0006Az-Na
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:57:38 +0000
Received: by bke11 with SMTP id 11so4688326bke.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.130.138 with SMTP id t10mr829844bks.10.1316177848209;
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.78.81.98] (GGMKCCCXCVIII.gprs.sl-laajakaista.fi.
[85.78.81.98])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t16sm6358202bkv.11.2011.09.16.05.57.24
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1_rOTd+sSgBTnj2iGKC2t7Rrh_pFAGtmWwjAKxaT0jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2MKTYCeOqERXKBMYEqNEK4eo9jGt81gZE1=Fv=s3wEqA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3FFEK0xrZqQkPyi8uoyb=XiPU7fSJDcGCLxiGH2uh3dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0Eowp6_mTcggCz3tivRL0NsqyyxqingmPzZ2qkJnU9EA@mail.gmail.com>
<4E71F6D6.2090208@justmoon.de>
<CABsx9T1_rOTd+sSgBTnj2iGKC2t7Rrh_pFAGtmWwjAKxaT0jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:57:20 +0300
Message-ID: <1316177840.15775.15.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(joel.kaartinen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
X-Headers-End: 1R4Xz4-0006Az-Na
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request review: drop misbehaving peers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0000
> Darn good question. If the protection fails, would it be better for it
> to 'fail hard', leaving people complaining "bitcoin won't stay
> connected!"
>
> Or fail soft, so you at least have a couple of connections.
>
> I think fail hard is better-- we'll immediately know about the
> problem, and can fix it. Fail soft makes me nervous because I think
> that would make it more likely a bug splits the network (and,
> therefore, the blockchain).
My own preference would be to fail hard with detection of the problem
and notification of the user if there's a GUI connected and/or running.
- Joel
|
