From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <aeef079eaae238539e2d6ac3d8ec8fa1@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:19:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20080421192856.74E5A5AD6@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 969dfef0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> But in any case setting PSH on a
> packet with no data serves no real purpose.

i think that's incorrect: it ensures a push of any data that is already buffered but un-pushed
(ie, the immediately preceding segment had no PSH, and the receiver's implementation buffers
accordingly).

part of the problem with the continued specification of protocols, even 30 years on,
as `formal' english text is that it can appear to be ambiguous when it's just subtly precise.
that's why i had to say `i think' as opposed to QED