On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Mike Cardwell wrote: > * on the Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:54:21PM +0100, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > > > I am also in favour of the flush-before-delay. The client will get the > > responses for the previous commands, so he will have at least that, and > > the server will not appear to be completely stuck. The behaviour is more > > "natural", I'd say, and it's better for debugging. > > imo, the expected behaviour would be for it to auto-flush, so I vote > to go ahead with this change.
I have committed a patch that implements this change, along with control = no_delay_flush to disable it, just in case anybody wants to. A test with Exim as both client and server displays the two behaviours nicely (one times out, the other works). Philip -- Philip Hazel, University of Cambridge Computing Service. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
