[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug ?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:43:24PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 15:08, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > > Who says they have to keep the 512 byte limit? People don't generally
> > > IRC from 300 baud modems these days. Anyway, if they're designing a new
> > > protocol, shouldn't the protocol be _new_? Perhaps it could be a
> > > thoroughly compact binary protocol, for instance.
> > 
> > That's actually on the list, although the conventional one will still
> > work - but ascii text orientation still has it's advantages
> 
> Such as wasting large quantities of extremely limited and very expensive
> bandwidth to allow about 5 users per network to use telnet to IRC?

Hmm, but server<>server links are commonly compressed and/or
encrypted these days, and hopefully SSL connections for clients
should become more common.  At that point, surely the only real
overhead is in processing?

PGP signature