>Sorry again, I dumped the logs from last year. My previous comment can >be considered an opinion, but am I wrong in thinking that qmail-send ala >1.01 wasn't as orderly upon receiving a -TERM? I remember saying to >myself, "that's a neat feature" the first time I saw 1.03 log entries >stating that qmail-send was exiting asap. Maybe I just never noticed this >behaviour in 1.01, or maybe it just wasn't logged. I don't think the behaviour changed, but certainly the log entry was introduced later - perhaps at 1.03. Regards.
- What happens when qmail-send is ki... Fred Lindberg
- Re: What happens when qmail-s... Mark Delany
- Re: What happens when qma... Rick Myers
- Re: What happens when... Mark Delany
- Re: What happens ... Adam D. McKenna
- Re: What happens ... Rick Myers
- Re: What hap... Mark Delany
- Re: What happens ... ddb
- Re: What hap... Mark Delany
- Re: What happens when... thomas . erskine-dated-f20a46fba97083ca
- Re: What happens when qmail-s... David Villeger
- Re: What happens when qmail-s... Fred Lindberg
- Re: What happens when qma... David Villeger
- Re: What happens when qma... thomas . erskine-dated-e60049dfa1e822a2
- Re: What happens when qma... Richard Letts
- Re: What happens when qmail-s... Fred Lindberg
