Marc Sherman wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > No. You're confusing the issue of randomization with the issue of
> > scanning the whole queue before running it. The code quite clearly
> > randomizes the order of the files in a directory.
>
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >
> > You took the description of 'queue_run_in_order' out of context. If
> > that option is not set (which is the default), the queue is run in
> > 'arbitrary' (= pseudo-random) order.
>
> Hrm. I'll trust both of you that I'm reading the docs wrong, but I
> think that Philip should probably add this section to his list of Doc
> TODOs for a rewrite, because I'm finding it very confusing. According
> to the docs for queue_run_in_order:
>
> > If this option is set, queue runs happen in order of message arrival
> > instead of in an arbitrary order. [snip] *When the queue is all in a
> > single directory (the default), this happens anyway*, ...
>
> That seems to me to say that the default behaviour is that messages are
> delivered out of the queue in arrival order, _unless_ the spool is split
> (in which case setting queue_run_in_order makes them deliver in arrival
> order again).
>
> - Marc
>
Try reading it in the order as presented in the documentation:
a> If this option is set, queue runs happen in order of message arrival
instead
of in an arbitrary order.
b> For this to happen, a complete list of the entire queue must be set up
before the deliveries start.
c> When the queue is all in a single directory (the default), this
[the IMMEDIATELY preceding item] happens anyway,
So, when the queue is a single directory, Exim creates a complete list
before
commencing the deliveries. It does not magically set the
"queue_run_in_order"
option just because it is only using a single queue.
Rgds
Jeff
