On 2013-02-13 11:03, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lauri Kenttä
wrote:
On 2013-02-09 23:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
"Invalid Datagrams" is too vague. It could mean datagrams sent or
received.
I think it's pretty obvious. Nobody should send invalid datagrams
anywa
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lauri Kenttä wrote:
> On 2013-02-09 23:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
>>
>> "Invalid Datagrams" is too vague. It could mean datagrams sent or
>> received.
>
> I think it's pretty obvious. Nobody should send invalid datagrams anyway,
> especially not using any actual d
On 2013-02-09 23:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
"Invalid Datagrams" is too vague. It could mean datagrams sent or
received.
I think it's pretty obvious. Nobody should send invalid datagrams
anyway, especially not using any actual datagram functions, so it would
be ridiculous to have a counter fo
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Lauri Kenttä wrote:
> Change labels in UDP statistics so that they better reflect the actual
> meanings as described in MSDN [1].
>
> [1]
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366929%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> ---
> - IDS_UDP_NO_PORTS,"No Ports
