How much effort is it worth to polish unpeer?

[Hal Murray]

Eric said:
> I don't think this needs to be pre-1.0, and there's a KISS case for simply
> documenting it as a known bug.  Opinions? 

I agree that it doesn't need to be fixed anytime soon and/or for 1.0.

The reason I sent that message is that it's a good example of what I expect 
for "the list".  More on that in another message.

I think that actually fixing it is reasonably simple and low risk.  The hard 
part would probably be writing the test harness.

The code to add the hole is:
        restrict_mask = restrictions(rmtadr);
        if (RES_FLAGS & restrict_mask) {
                msyslog(LOG_INFO, "Server poking hole in restrictions for: 
%s",
                        socktoa(rmtadr));
                restrict_source(rmtadr, false, 0);
        }

The code to remove it should be as simple.  We'll need a new flag for 
add-hole to set and unpeer to test.

---------

The other part of my message was that maybe we don't want to poke holes in 
restrictions.  Suppose I decide I don't want to use any servers run by 
Dilbert but he has a server in the pool.  I'd like to be able to add a 
restrict line with a flag that says don't poke holes in me.  Then the pool 
code that processes DNS lookups could skip that slot rather than poke a hole 
and add it.

----------

Those could be two items on the list or one item that covers them both.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.