Re: temporary failure warning message

[Rogerio Brito]

On Apr 25 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd also significantly reduce the queue lifetime; honestly, if the
> message can't be delivered in two or three days, most e-mail users
> these days seem to have already concluded it will never get there
> and get really confused when it comes through.

        If you're considering less than seven days for queuelifetime,
        do set it to at least four days -- it's frequently the case
        where a message was not delivered because some computer failed
        on a Friday afternoon and it can only be replaced/fixed on
        Monday morning and e-mails can't be delivered in the mean
        time... :-(

        So, three days may be a little short. Or should this mean that
        secondary MXs, once fought against begin to become a necessary
        condition?


        []s, Roger...

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
     Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=