From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VajBI-0006gj-I7
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.44; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f44.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VajBH-0002NQ-Ih
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:16 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ep20so5017905lab.31
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.126.37 with SMTP id mv5mr10721603lbb.20.1382952728840;
	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <l4lajm$3ga$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <274a1888-276c-4aa6-a818-68f548fbe0fa@me.com>
	<9DCDB8F6-E3B2-426B-A41E-087E66B3821A@gmail.com>
	<526B45DB.2030200@jerviss.org>
	<CABsx9T2OMA_u=S9yUh2j78QDuCDUorYctktuixjwAjqc6neW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<526DD18A.7060201@jerviss.org> <l4lajm$3ga$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:32:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSuL4f9Sdg2CyK-EuCKK04gD98zHDoKFyTg_Fp_cNiz=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
	See
	http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
	for more information. [URIs: schildbach.de]
X-Headers-End: 1VajBH-0002NQ-Ih
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:32:16 -0000

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
> HTTP also defines success codes (2xx). Are we also talking about ACK
> messages now, rather than just REJECT messages?

I do not believe we should do that:  It would be a non-trivial
increase the protocol bandwidth requirements.