* on the Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:54:21PM +0100, Jakob Hirsch wrote: >> 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.
imo, the expected behaviour would be for it to auto-flush, so I vote to go ahead with this change. > 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. If you're only using very short delays and autoflushing, it half defeats the point of pipelining come to think of it. Perhaps, there should be a control to enable/disable it? Mike -- ## 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/
