On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tim Jackson wrote:
> sender/callout=10s&40s
>
> The latter would even make some kind of sense, since it's "timeout of 10s
> AND overall timeout of 40s"
I did consider &, and that is a nice rationalization.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Russell King wrote:
> Hang on, we already have options which modify the callout behaviour.
> So why can't this just be another option in that sense?
>
> verify = sender/callout=10s,maxwait=40s,defer_ok,postmaster
>
> This follows the already well established pattern of supplying options
> to the callout.
Indeed. That would be possible. I did it the way I did it because it
seemed to me that what was happening was that the single callout
timeout was being turned into a multiple-valued thing, so it sort of
went with the "callout" option.
But given the difficulty of doing that, I'm now inclined to choose your
suggestion instead. OK everybody else?
Regards,
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
