Re: [exim] SMTP temporary refusal, caveats?

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Chris Edwards wrote:

> Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'd have thought if you're regularly getting
> load av. in the "tens", then it may be time for some new(er) boxes.

I probably agree, but that isn't going to happen this week.

> | Any comments welcome, positive or negative. I feel this change was too
> | easy, and something might bite.
>
> If you're defering lots of connections, I'd have thought the delaying of
> much normal mail from proper MTAs that *do* retry would be more noticeable
> to users than the rare loss of something that doesn't retry.

I'd have thought so too, but not enough for people to complain about it so
far. And neither do I encourage any expection that email systems are
'immediate'! Connections tend to be deferred only at the busiest times of
day, around lunchtime essentially.

Thanks for the comments.

Jethro.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computing Officer, IT Services
University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK