On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:42:04 +0100 (BST), Philip Hazel
<ph10@???> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I will probably change all -q to -qq on my systems, and the Debian
>> exim 4 package will probably migrate as well.
>>
>> This will happen unless somebody on this list objects with a reason.
>
>I do not think you should use -qq for "normal" queue runs. Specifically,
>I *definitely* do not think you should use it as default in the Debian (or
>any other "standard") packaging of Exim.
Convinced. -q is it ;)
>Reason: In a "normal" configuration, Exim tries to deliver each message
>when it receives it. If it fails (and the recipient is remote), it
>remembers which messages are waiting for which hosts in its hints data.
>So when it next successfully delivers to one of those hosts, it already
>knows which messages to push down the same connection.
And the queue runner in that case honors the hints that were built?
>-qq is useful when the messages on the queue have NOT previously been
>attempted, because in that case, Exim has not previously routed them.
>This is for special-case use, such as sites that usue queue_only, or
>other ways of putting messages on the queue without routing them. One
>common case is dial-up hosts that are off-line (I think -qq was invented
>for them, come to think of it).
What would you do on a system that frequently trips its queue_only_max
setting?
>Please do not use blindly replace -q with -qq. It is not a good idea.
Point taken. Thanks for your valuable input, I really appreciate that.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
