> > I don't use Exim queue runners for larger systems, because they do > > not scale with a growing queue. > > Hmm, so what are we talking about then? :o)
Exim queue runners don't deliver mails on their own, but spawn children doing that. Your suggestion is to use a new flag that queue runners had to pass to those children, and of course exim had to check if that flag had been passed by a non-admin user. That works, but it is more work to be sure you get it all right. That's why I suggested a configuration file option. Only admins can change it and any exim process has the same, consistent view of the configuration. I don't use n queue runners that scan the queue in an uncoordinated manner, thus frequently colliding with each other, but one script that enumerates the queue once and keeps n parallel deliveries running. In fact, n plus a few more (one delivery may trigger further deliveries). The actual delivery process wouldn't know the difference. You can do nice things that way. > Well, you can of course disable regular queueruns while messing around. > The listening daemon may make some problems, but you can (re)start it > with "-odq" at least. If there is any way to still accept new messages, I do that, because otherwise I hurt whoever wants to send them. > > Ah, the joy of "distributions". > > I just thought it won't hurt to ask... It's a valid question and I am surprised for good to hear Debian is likely to follow Philip not compiling that extension by default. Michael -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
