On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Giving precidence to processing the todo queue seems like a good idea,
> especially if you don't have the big-todo patch applied.
I think there shouldn't be one queue in the scheduler. There's IMHO no
need to have the scheduler do both: insert new messages and schedule
deliveries. the big-todo patch has nothing to do with it. it just
speeds up access time on some filesystems.
> >well administrated and even after the queue has reached a status where
> >you have no unprocessed messages at one point the bounces slow down
> >qmail quite a lot.
>
> Sounds like a good case for setting up a second qmail, one just for pumping
> mail out while another is handling bounces.
Sorry? No you can't, at least not with a lot of the bounces. If
qmail-remote gets a permantent error, it signals back to qmail-send
and a bounce is generated internally (i.e. injected into the queue).
You can't avoid this happen locally.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
