Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudcv
From: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: newmail also displays on console (bug)
Message-ID: <122@titania.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Mar 89 23:01:38 GMT
References: <316@wubios.wustl.edu> <890001@hpausla.HP.COM> <5142@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <4774@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <2918@epimass.EPI.COM> <117@titania.warwick.ac.uk> <9079@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Reply-To: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 17

Re: background jobs not receiving SIGHUP on systems with job control.

In article <9079@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>You may be correct about systems with job control but it seems like a major
>problem.  You're saying that SIGHUP is often worthless on such a system.

I failed to say that the current foreground job, and the shell, still receive
the SIGHUP, so SIGHUP still does it's job of clearing the terminal.  I guess
it depends on what you expect SIGHUP to do ... it feels like a feature to me
that a job I've put into the background doesn't get killed when I unexpectedly
get called away, just because I've forgotten to use `nohup' on it.

Rob
-- 
UUCP:   ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudcv	PHONE:  +44 203 523037
JANET:  cudcv@uk.ac.warwick             ARPA:   cudcv@warwick.ac.uk
Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England