Arnt favors (or least dislikes) a forced disconnection, while Mark opposes it (at least a bit). It is meant as the last ressort if a command cannot be fulfilled (i.e. the server waits as long as it can, possibly to give the expunge information to the client anytime before it still works with its old data). This has the same disadvantage as any NO response (probably an error message to the user like "server unexpectedly disconnected"), but does not reveal any false data. It is very easy to implement, but this is not the the main issue for me (nor should it be). Question: Are there clients which gracefully reconnect without error message?
Mulberry does this.
I doubt it, and I don't think this should be "advisable" for client implementors, should it?
I think it should, given how often connections get interrupted. As you probably know, most German DSL providers disconnect you every once in a while (mine does it twice a day). I appreciate the fact that Mulberry simply reconnects silently in these instances.
Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg�rtel 156, 50823 K�ln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/
"Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock
