Jakob Hirsch wrote: > Quoting Philip Hazel: > >> But I am really interested in views as to whether doing the automatic >> flush is a good idea or not. > > I am also in favour of the flush-before-delay. The client will get the > responses for the previous commands, so he will have at least that, and > the server will not appear to be completely stuck. The behaviour is more > "natural", I'd say, and it's better for debugging. > > We could introduce modifiers for the delay keyword (like "delay = > 10s/noflush"), if somebody wants the old behaviour, but it's probably > not worth it. >
Given the (potentially) torturous nature of a pipelined 'session' will it not: - take a lot more coding and testing in Exim to insure nothing breaks than the gain may justify? - have a reasonable chance of finding 'appropriate' handling at the far-end? The second part concerns me more than the first as: - it is beyond 'our' control. - many of the 'majority' MTA have rather poor reputations for doing things 'correctly' in general. IOW - even given the tools, will we find a frequent need to make exemptions - or even turn them off? Personally, I'd rather give up delays if need be.... which breaks nothing. JM2CW Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
