Re: IDLE problem, and unsafe copy command

2001-01-17 Thread John Holman
Ken Thanks for the quick fix, which has solved the IDLE problem. I should probably point out though that this fix does not address the problem I reported last week. It seems to me that under different circumstances the copy command could still fail in an unsafe way, leading to loss of messages

Re: IDLE problem

2001-01-17 Thread Ken Murchison
Walter Steiner wrote: In my case (Solaris 8, outlook client) the problem of dying imapds isn't fixed yet. I think it dies in the second call to idle_poll() (alarm timer). This might be related to ... According to the signal(3C) man page on Solaris 8: void (*signal (int sig,

Re: IDLE problem

2001-01-17 Thread mills
Kenneth Murchison writes: Damn! My Linux development system treats unreliable signals as reliable, so I never caught this glaring error. I just verified that the current code will NOT work correctly on Solaris 7+ and IRIX 6.x. This may be unrelated, but I notice that idled disappears a day

IDLE problem

2001-01-16 Thread John Holman
(Follow up to last message) In fact the IDLE problem is quite general. If the client has used the IDLE command, it seems that the imapd process will be killed and the connection closed with "signalled to death by 14" whenever more than about 50 seconds passes between commands sent by

Re: IDLE problem

2001-01-16 Thread Ken Murchison
John Holman wrote: (Follow up to last message) In fact the IDLE problem is quite general. If the client has used the IDLE command, it seems that the imapd process will be killed and the connection closed with "signalled to death by 14" whenever more than about 50 seconds pass

Re: IDLE problem

2001-01-16 Thread Chris Blown
Cheers Ken, Thanks for speedy patch. Regs Chris Linux System Admin Hinterlands Aust. Ken Murchison wrote: John, Forget about my last message, here is the fix. This was stupid, I don't know how I missed this. I must have changed the signal disposition at the last minute without testing