On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:23:00PM +0000, Ian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:13:24PM +0200 Vadim Vygonets wrote :
> > Yeah, it would be nice to have an option called
> > remote_max_parallel.
>
> ;-) This option only deals with parallel to deliveries to one host not to
> many.
>
> Nearly all mailing list programs rely on the :include: syntax present in MTAs
> to some degree or other. The behaviour I was referring to is where one
> address out of say 200 fails slowly and causes every other delivery to wait
> there until it does fail.
That's not the impression I get from the spec:
> Otherwise, if a message has to be delivered to **more than one
> remote host**, or if several copies have to be sent to the same
> remote host, then up to `remote_max_parallel' deliveries are done
> simultaneously, each in a separate process.
SRH
--
Steve Haslam, Production Engineer, Excite UK steve.haslam@???
i sit and stare at the gun pointed at my head
and think about all the possibilities
