On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:36:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > > > > Same here. Though I did notice that some of the -www-cvs > > > > > > > > messages were > > > > > > > > coming in late (that is, messages sent earlier come later than > > > > > > > > those that > > > > > > > > were sent later) recently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a common mis-feature of Qmail. If messages are queued > > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > sent out directly, it can take ages to get the Q flushed. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I didn't have any problems with my MTA (that would incite > > > > > > queueing), and > > > > > > it didn't happen before IIRC. > > > > > > > > > > Goor morning, I was talking about murphy, not your mta. > > > > > > > > Good morning, I was talking about murphy, too. > > > > > > So since when is the mta on murphy *your* mta? Did I miss something? > > > > The MTA on murphy would defer and queue messages for me if my MTA wouldn't > > accept the message. Maybe you are referring to something else? > > Hmm, apparently, let's waste some time and bandwidth: > > a) murphy doesn't deliver mail due to some reason > b) mail gets queued > c) murphy continues delivery > d) new mails will be delivered at once > e) queued mail will only be delivered occasionally > f) new new mail will be delivered at once > g) queued mail will only be delivered occasionally > etc. etc. > > So, new mail reaches the recipient at once, old mail will take > ages to get to the recipient.
Yes, but a) didn't happen for me. (Did it?) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification