Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function.

From: Dario Lombardo <dario.lombardo.ml () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:18:00 +0100

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Anders Broman <a.broman58 () gmail com>
wrote:

First thought is, unnecessary processing to satisfy this new
functionality, which frankly I have my doubts about...

I have the same feeling. But I can't figure out something else so far.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

Current thread:

False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Anders Broman (Feb 12)
- Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Dario Lombardo (Feb 12)
  - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Anders Broman (Feb 12)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Dario Lombardo (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Anders Broman (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Dario Lombardo (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Anders Broman (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Dario Lombardo (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Jeff Morriss (Feb 13)
    - Re: False positive from the new "Look for incomplete dissectors" function. Dario Lombardo (Feb 17)