MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Fri Jun 30 10:12:07 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP disconnection
In-Reply-To: <kFysL5r4CM2misKgHbA2Fw.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
References: <etPan.44a548f0.6bad5e90.d87@utopia> 
	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0606300923160.408@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<kFysL5r4CM2misKgHbA2Fw.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0606301005320.408@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Don't you think the servers on such platforms should deal with it, instead of 
> expecting all clients on all platforms to do so?
> For example, a server on such a platform can fork off another intance of 
> itself (invisible to the client), close the IMAP connection, and let the 
> client go on its way?

That makes no sense.  I said that the server gets a non-maskable kill from 
the OS.  The server has no notice, nor any opportunity to react; it is 
instantly destroyed.

Fortunately, this is rare (and arguably broken) OS behavior.  Most OS 
developers realize that a server should get a proper maskable signal on 
disconnect so that the server can undertake its cleanup action.

The LOGOUT command exists in IMAP for a reason.  Clients which do not send 
the LOGOUT command are broken.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

