Why not use
delay_warning = huge_number
This is crude and doesn't quite achieve sensible warnings to lists as
against users.
Our PP system sends 2 warnings in 8 days and that's what we want exim to
do, currently it's 48 hours.
--
Alan Thew alan.thew@???
Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Richard Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Greg Andrews wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, Sendmail doesn't generate warnings for messages
> > that have certain values in the Precedence: header. I believe the
> > values are commonly configured as 'list', 'bulk', and 'junk'.
> >
> > I don't know if Exim has the same functionality, but it seems to me
> > like a good idea.
>
> I have had a look at the code. In deliver.c there is:
>
> /* Now the warning stuff */
>
> if (delay_warning > 0 && sender_address[0] != 0)
> {
> int queue_time = time(NULL) - received_time;
> int count = queue_time/delay_warning;
>
> if (warning_count < count)
>
> The queue_time and warning_count appear to be kept on the fourth line of
> the -H file. The above code suggests that a warning will be sent after
> every delay_warning period has elapsed. (I may be wrong but I didn't
> think that PP sent them quite so often after the first one.) I wondered
> about adding extra code to look at the global variable message_precedence,
> but my knowledge of C programming is rather limited and I would be worried
> about adding something to the code just a few days before going on holiday
> for three weeks! But perhaps there are more experienced C programmers who
> could suggest something?
>
> Richard
> --
> Richard Gilbert
> Corporate Information and Computing Services
> University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK
> Phone: +44 114 222 3028 Fax: +44 114 222 3040
>
>
>
