Michael Haardt wrote: > Your suggestion is to use a new flag that queue runners had to pass > to those children,
Not neccessarily, but that's what I thought would be most usefull. > and of course exim had to check if that flag had been passed by a > non-admin user. That works, but it is more work to be sure you get > it all right. I now get your point. > I don't use n queue runners that scan the queue in an uncoordinated > manner, thus frequently colliding with each other, but one script > that enumerates the queue once and keeps n parallel deliveries > running. Sounds reasonable, maybe I should try that too on our queue server. I didn't mind so far, as it is running fine as long as the queue stays below, say, 100k messages. lg, daniel -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
