Re: [Exim] Retrying after a long period of failure: opinions…

On (2003/01/14 17:11), Philip Hazel wrote:

> > What wasn't suggested, which surprised me, was to simply toggle the
> > default value of delay_after_cutoff to false.
> >
> > Default options should work best for the masses. It seems to me that
> > the masses would be best served by no_delay_after_cutoff.
>
> I think that is arguable either way. Therefore I decided to make no
> change.

Oh, okay. I haven't really thought about it "from the other side", but
if it's arguable that the current default serves the masses, then all's
well. :-)

Thanks,
Sheldon.