------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=428
--- Comment #15 from Dave Lugo <dlugo@???> 2007-07-30 19:28:02 ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> --- Comment #14 from Tony Finch <dot@???> 2007-07-30 19:22:28 ---
> A rate of 0 is correct for the first message. The essence of the computation
> is:
>
> interval = this_time - prev_time;
> i_over_p = interval / period;
> a = exp(-i_over_p);
> new_rate = (1 - a) / i_over_p + a * old_rate;
>
> For the first message, the interval is effectively infinite, so
>
> interval = inf;
> i_over_p = inf / period = inf;
> a = exp(-i_over_p) = exp(-inf) = 0;
> new_rate = (1 - a) / i_over_p + a * old_rate
> = 1 / inf + 0 * old_rate
> = 0;
>
> This has the advantage that you can set the rate limit arbitrarily low.
>
> I'm not sure whether or not the noupdate in your previous posts is a red
> herring. The debugging output you posted is consistent with a stray noupdate. I
> can't understand what you are trying to suggest in your last post.
>
I think most of the problem was me confusing myself, and a bad
paste into one of the comments in this bug. <sorry>
I ended up getting it working fine (see my post on exim-dev).
The current noupdate patch works great for what I want to do.
Best regards,
Dave
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
