Guido van Rossum wrote: >>Doesn't seem quite right to me yet - the problem is that if data arrives >>1 byte at a time with just less than the timeout between each byte, then >>you can get n*timeout as the actual timeout (where n is potentially very >>large). You need to reduce the timeout after each select, surely? > > > I don't think that's a big deal. If its documented that the timeout is an order-of-magnitude thing that is susceptible to DoS attacks, then I guess not. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4