Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...

[Andrew Wilson <a.wilson@elsevier.co.uk>]

In:

    http://www.research.att.com/~davek/mcp2.html

I take issue with this paragraph in the 'Message format' section:

    To allow the protocol to be resilient in the face of buggy
    implementations, however, implementations should accept such
    messages, treating the last ocurrence of a duplicate keyword as the
    correct one (i.e., in the example above, the text "Hey there..." is
    treated as the value of the what argument).

I think that the only correct thing to do when a message arrives and is
recognised as being invalid is to drop the message - to treat it as an
error and *NOT* to attempt to best-guess any other form of response.

Ay.