> That sounds extreme and complicated, difficult to explain, and liable to > errors, for what is a situation case. > > Incidentally, I have often argued that the use of backup MX (currently > going out of favour) is one way to avoid this problem. The pending mail > collects on the backup and can be transferred in an orderly fashion when > the primary comes up. Of course, you then have the problem of keeping > the acceptance rules identical on the backup and the primary, so I can > see why people don't like backup MX any more. There are problems both > ways.
My problem is not with mail from outside, but inside the cluster. Think of it as ethernet: It uses exponential backoff, but takes a random number within the backoff interval. That way it gets rid of the situation that two stations always collide. And that's pretty much my problem, so I thought about solving it just the same. I can see a use for fixed retry intervals, but does anybody really care about a geometric interval being met exactly? I think people use it for the exponential backoff character, not caring about the exact interval as long as it keeps growing. Using it as interval for a random value keeps that character, and avoids retry collions. Michael -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
