Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than so

Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argu

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:41:23 +0200

On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 12:33:41AM +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> To my experience I would STRONGLY VOTE TO ENABLE ALL OF THIS REASSEMBLY 
> THINGS AS DEFAULT.

full ack

 Joerg
-- 
Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.

Follow-Ups:
- [Ethereal-dev] Re: Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: ronnie sahlberg

References:
- [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: Guy Harris
- SV: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: Anders Broman
- Re: SV: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: Guy Harris
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: Thomas Anders
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] Should "dissect_tpkt_encap()" check only its "desegment" argument, rather than sometimes directly checking tpkt_desegment?
  - From: Ulf Lamping