Autologout of unused terminals

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <KARL.88Dec1155436 at triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl at triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:
>gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>   and anyway why should a process have to
>   disable SIGHUP in order to do its natural job?
>Perhaps I'm dense today, but I don't understand the question.

Your proposal would force the shell to disable SIGHUP for itself and
all its descendants, in order that your ill-advised assault on legitimate
processing not be prematurely aborted.  In that case, not only is SIGHUP
not longer useful for anything, but also the legitimate uses that it had
(to clean up when a connection was severed, for example) have been lost.