Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are worse consequences. ... > The result is that the flag changes are lost.
Good point. > The only excuse for a client not to send a proper LOGOUT is if the client > crashes. The LOGOUT command is in the protocol for a reason, and that reason > was not cosmetic. I don't agree. For example, if I'm being told to quit just after I've sent a SEARCH (not SEARCH UNSEEN, a real search), IMO I have a decent excuse not to wait for SEARCH/LOGOUT to complete. > You should send a LOGOUT command, and wait for the response. I'm aware that sending logout and waiting for the response is desirable, and try to do it. The question is: If I have reason to believe that I won't be able to wait for the response, should I nevertheless send LOGOUT? I now think the best answer is yes, and will add the necessary line of code. > If LOGOUT takes > a while, then it is doing something, such as saving user updates. You really > don't want to cause the server to get a SIGKILL while it is doing such. Agreed. --Arnt
