Re: [DISC] re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...

[Michael Brundage <brundage@ipac.caltech.edu>]

On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Dave Kormann wrote:
>  > 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.
> 
> given this and erik's, ahem, VOCAL support, i'm all for ditching the
> requirement that duplicate keywords be handled at all; the message
> should be dropped.  any objections?

I agree completely with what Andy wrote on the matter.  Lines with 
duplicate keywords (or otherwise "weird" problems) should be dropped and 
forgotten by the client (unless of course, it has some mechanism and need 
for reporting the error to the server)

michael