On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:42:15PM +0100, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 9:34 PM, Richard Atterer <richard_at_2008.atterer.net> wrote:
> > Separate support for 4a might still be useful if the remote server only
> > supports one of the two versions...
>
> I agree with that and I just committed your patch (with my added docs and
> some minor comments).

Cool, thanks! :-)

> It made me think about the socks5-dns-resolve approach. Would it make
> sense to call that SOCKS5A just to be consistent? I mean instead of
> having that separate setopt option?

I had the same thought looking at Maxim's patch. The SOCKS code should also
be refactored some more, there should be more helper functions to make the
core functions smaller. "SOCKS5A" sounds a bit weird at first as there is
no such version of the protocol - but it's just as good as any other value
like "SOCKS5DNS".

...OTOH, don't fix it if it ain't broke! ;-)

Cheers,

  Richard

-- 
  __   _
  |_) /|  Richard Atterer     |  GnuPG key: 888354F7
  | \/¯|  http://atterer.net  |  08A9 7B7D 3D13 3EF2 3D25  D157 79E6 F6DC 8883 54F7
  ¯ '` ¯