PE> My idea is for the callers to set their timeout to about 4 minutes.

RS> I cant see what you think that will achieve,
RS> thats no different to the Telstra timeout.

PE> That's exactly what I'm proposing.  If you let Telstra
PE> be the one to cut the connection, rather than your modem,
PE> you can guarantee there was no answer on the other end.
PE> If there was an answer, Telstra wouldn't have timed you out.

OK, another example of where your original was so cryptic that it wasnt
possible to see what you meant. What you should have said was that the
callers should set their timeout to longer than the Telstra timeout, and
longer than the Telstra timeout by the full longest handshaking time too.

I agree, that would fix the problem of the caller being charged
for a call which doesnt achieve a viable connect between the modems.

But its got some problems, the Telstra timeout
varys heaps with the telephone exchange technology.

I still think that having a special event which waits for the
RINGs to stop if there are some at then of the mail tossing is
better, mainly because its just done on your system and the users dont
have to do a damned thing, not even understand what needs to be done.

RS> Maybe its possible to do it your way, with the modem not being
RS> busied, and then have a special event which is invoked at the end of
RS> the mail processing event which just checks to see if the modem is
RS> seeing a ring, and spins its wheels till it stops ringing, and doesnt
RS> answer the call. Then once the line has stopped ringing, that event
RS> terminates and you drop into the normal mode waiting for the next RING.

PE> Yes, that sounds good, although you may have trouble
PE> with one person aborting and the next person getting
PE> through, so that it takes ages for the RINGs to clear,

RS> I think you are having another brain fart. This proposal is no different
RS> to the situation where you just dont answer the phone during the mail
RS> processing, and just avoids the risk of picking up the call at the end
RS> of a long series of rings, just before the caller is about to give up,
RS> only to have his mailer timeout very soon after you answer.

RS> It has no effect whatever on the separate
RS> problem of more than one caller etc.

PE> although that could be countered with a 5 minute timeout.

RS> I think you are misunderstanding what I intended there.

Yes, you have a hell of a capacity for being extremely cryptic.

PE> If I come back online, and see RINGs, you propose that I spin my wheels.

Yes.

PE> The trouble is, with 4 people attack dialling me, 1 is
PE> getting RINGs, the other 3 are getting BUSY and redialling.

Yes.

PE> Now if the first person finally gives up,
PE> the idea is that I stop spinning my wheels.

Yes.

PE> But if someone else calls straight away, I won't know to stop spinning
PE> my wheels, because I think the first person is still ringing!!!

That assumes that the other callers are attack dialing at such a
high rate than you dont seen any pause in the RINGs, even tho they are
caused by different callers, so you never ever drop out of that event.

I cant see thats at all likely. Its certainly a theoretical possibility tho.

I basically still think its a better approach, if only because
you dont have to get the callers to change the way they do things.
@EOT:

---