Re: [exim-dev] Exim issues with shadow_transport

On 2008-09-26 at 03:12 -0700, Phil Pennock wrote:
> FWIW, and this is likely *not* the cause of your ALRM problems, it
> appears that there's an undocumented (but intuitively sensible, if you
> think about it) constraint that you can't use
> return_output/return_fail_output on shadow transports.

In transport.c:transport_write_block(), shouldn't there be a
"sigalrm_seen = FALSE" before the "alarm(local_timeout);" on line 234
(per rev 1.21) so that if a previous alarm's SIGALRM was issued, we
don't fail out immediately?

-Phil