On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Michael Haardt wrote: > Evidence is a hard word. When I asked about making this patch initially, > all I heard is: You don't need it, queue runs are not synchronised and > there is nothing a random interval could do any better than the randomness > introduced by life. Go fix your system. So obviously nobody answering > ever checked the intervals really.
I fully understand that, and I see *your* need for the facility and I'm prepared to put it in. Just not as the default. > Are you willing to bet that somebody would still like to get the old > behaviour back? I am not a betting person, but I would not be surprised if there wasn't somebody who wanted predictability. In fact, *I* do, for testing. :-) -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
