In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
I think we've had this debate before.
While I don't think the spec requires it, I believe every implementation
ever written, and probably ever likely to be written, will not discard
datagrams that have already been buffered. If they run out of buffer
space they'll discard new incoming datagrams rather than replace
Are you aware of counterexamples?
So while it's not a guarantee, it's pretty safe to use MSG_PEEK with
Barry Margolin, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***