Alan Thew writes:
>
> Why not use
>
> delay_warning = huge_number
>
> This is crude and doesn't quite achieve sensible warnings to lists as
> against users.
If you just want to turn off warning reports altogether,
delay_warning = 0s
is canonical.
> Our PP system sends 2 warnings in 8 days and that's what we want exim to
> do, currently it's 48 hours.
I have suggested in the past on this list that delay_warning should allow
something more like a retry specification, rather than just multiples of
a particular value.
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.
It doesn't currently, but this seems to me to be the best suggestion. As
Exim has the parsed headers read into store when it is considering whether
to send a warning message, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult to implement.
But I had better not promise anything on behalf of Philip Hazel while he
isn't here...
Chris Thompson Cambridge University Computing Service,
Email: cet1@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.
