Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Ben Kennedy wrote: > > In this example, pureperlfilter is cleaning up its socket (though > > sometimes for whatever reason the socket stays around causing it to > > refuse to launch subsequently); perlfilter is not removing its. > > IMHO, the latter is correct. But again, I have no experience with > pureperlfilter. Shouldn't it work the same way?
pureperlfilter is the bootstrapping executable for Courier::Filter. C:F cleans up its socket when shutting down (e.g. when told to by courierfilter), but refuses to start if the socket it wants to create already exists. Under normal conditions this makes the socket handling work without requiring manual intervention. But when C:F crashes (extremely unlikely) or when the entire system crashes, C:F's socket remains as a stale socket so as to prevent unwanted messages from being accepted. I have been thinking about an intelligent way for C:F to detect during startup if an existing socket is stale (then it may just be overwritten during restart) or belongs to an already running instance of C:F. But I haven't invested enough time into this yet. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
