http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1911
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-01 11:24 ------- 'We should just have one configurable timeout for the locking code.' disagree. How long to use for a timeout depends entirely on the calling code's design, not on the abstracted locking subsystem used. for example: - opportunistically attempting to autolearn during scanning: short lock timeout - AWL update: short lock timeout - user-initiated manual training: long timeout we've been through this before IIRC, with a lock-timeout specified in the locking code, and ran into many problems that resulted in us changing to the timeout being controllable from the high-level calling code instead. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
