Re: [exim] Should queue processing be rewritten in Exim?

Top Page
This message is part of the following thread:
M+----\the complete thread tree sorted by date
MM....MMarc Perkel at <-
MM+++\Graeme Fowler at ->
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Peter Bowyer
Date:  
To: exim-user
Subject: Re: [exim] Should queue processing be rewritten in Exim?
On 02/07/2008, Marc Perkel <marc@???> wrote:
> Suppose Exim had 2 queues instead of one. We'll call the first queue the
> primary queue which is a ram drive and the secondary queue which is a
> disk drive. All this is of course optional and user settable.

You're proposing a solution before defining the requirements. What's
the high-level use case here?

Peter

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee

This message was posted to the following mailing lists:
Exim-users
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages		<-Re: [exim] Should queue processing be rewritten in Exim?Re: [exim] Should queue processing be rewritten in Exim?->
Tahini and Hummus and Cumin Development Archives administrated by cumin AdminsLurker (version 2.3)