Author: Matthew Adams Date: To: Philip Hazel, Tim Cutts CC: Exim Email List Subject: Re: [Q] Sending several messages
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, at 17:07:03 +0100, Philip Hazel <ph10@???> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Matthew Adams wrote: > > remote_max_parallel do this, although I read it as only relevant to
> > the *same* message to different hosts as opposed to *different*
> > messages to different hosts.
>
> Your reading is correct. Try several "exim -qf" runs at once; i.e.
> instead of typeing
>
> exim -qf
>
> try
>
> exim -qf; exim -qf; exim -qf; exim -qf
>
> or write a cunning script to count the waiting messages and choose a
> suitable number to fire up.
Now why didn't I think of that! Thanks, I'll give it a go.
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, at 18:05:22 +0100, Tim Cutts <tjrc1@???> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Philip Hazel wrote:
>
> > > One other question, is there any advantage to using queue_smtp over
> > > queue_remote in my situation as a dial up host?
> >
> > Probably not, since presumably you can't do DNS lookups when you are not
> > dialled up. I'm afraid I designed Exim for a permanent connection, so it
> > isn't ideal in a dial-up context.
>
> Ooh, I don't know. :-) I find it works a treat on my Linux box at home.
> I personally use queue_remote so that it doesn't try to perform a DNS
> lookup when I send a message.
Yes, I'm using it in much the same way (ie Linux box at home), and it
is much easier to administer than sendmail, which I used to use -
seems faster too! I'm very happy that I changed - even if I have only
got a lowly dial up account rather than a permanent connection :-) Ok,
I will change to queue_remote and see if I notice any differences,
thanks for your quick responses!
