Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA09318; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:12:33 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:12:14 -0400 Received: from leftbank.com (lbo.leftbank.com [192.31.227.130]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA09252; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:12:11 -0400 Received: by leftbank.com (4.1/Leftbank1.0) id AA16635; Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:12:04 EDT From: cos@leftbank.com (Ofer Inbar) Message-Id: <9607031612.AA16635@leftbank.com> Subject: Re: eliminate QUIT? To: drums@cs.utk.edu Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Organization: The Left Bank Operation - http://www.leftbank.com/ Reply-To: cos@leftbank.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eliminating QUIT seems to me to be out of scope. However, a statement telling server implementors to handle clients that disconnect right after sending QUIT identically to clients that disconnect after the server replies to the QUIT, is probably a good idea. -- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@leftbank.com cos@cs.brandeis.edu -- WBRS (100.1 FM) -- WBRS@brandeis.edu http://www.wbrs.org/ "... as a member of ASCAP, I can assure you that this is not a model we should emulate ... It doesn't really work. Honest." -- John Barlow, "The Economy of Ideas", Wired 2.03