On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Michael Haardt wrote:
> Evidence is a hard word. When I asked about making this patch initially,
> all I heard is: You don't need it, queue runs are not synchronised and
> there is nothing a random interval could do any better than the randomness
> introduced by life. Go fix your system. So obviously nobody answering
> ever checked the intervals really.
I fully understand that, and I see *your* need for the facility and I'm
prepared to put it in. Just not as the default.
> Are you willing to bet that somebody would still like to get the old
> behaviour back?
I am not a betting person, but I would not be surprised if there wasn't
somebody who wanted predictability. In fact, *I* do, for testing. :-)
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
