Jernej Simon?i? writes:
> On Sunday, December 7, 2003, 15:57:38, eric wrote:
> > I have experienced such cases on very big hubs and also on heavily loaded
> > connections with traffic shapping or QoS support. My absolute "record" is a
> > hub with a min delay of 15 seconds and a client min delay of 120 seconds.
> IMHO, a time stamp is not necessary, and even if it would be added, the hubs
> should never rely on it - otherwise a client could just send faked
> timestamps when searching...
That was precisely what I was thinking.
However, I think the problem is rather easy to remedy. The hub should
simply ignore the second search request if it comes too early and send
an error back to the client. That way, the client can simply retry at
Also, like I said elsewhere, I think all commands should have an "OK"
return if they succeed. That way, the client will know when it can
start counting the seconds.