On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:13:11PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:07:24 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The information is passed via the environment variable
> > QMAILQUEUELIFETIME to qmail-inject, which uses a new code (L) in the
> > todo file. qmail-send moves this new code over to the info file, and
> > honors it when bouncing messages.
>
> Hmm. A more devious hack might be to adjust the mtime of the info file to be
> time() + QMAILQUEUELIFETIME - control/queuelifetime. The cost would be
> much closer to zero then - albeit at the cost of a misleading info file...
>
> The problem is that the information has to get from qmail-inject to
> the info file. qmail-inject creates a todo file. It is qmail-send
> which reads the todo file, and creates the info file. So the
> information must be recorded in the todo file in some fashion. It
> could be done by fiddling the mtime of the todo file, and having
> qmail-send copy the mtime of the todo file over to the info file. But
> I don't think that is significantly cheaper than what I implemented.
>
> Also it would make the qmail-qread output misleading.
Agreed. Off tangent, how does an SMTP submission get at this feature? Interestingly,
it should probably be something that each MTA knows about to be truly useful,
consider secondary MXes gateway systems, etc. Ahh, a change in SMTP - fat chance!
Regards.
