Re: [Nmh-workers] Why Attempt fork(2) up to Five Times?

Date:Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:57:27 +0100 From:Ralph Corderoy Message-ID: <20170908145727.a7d571f...@orac.inputplus.co.uk> | Ken wondered why we bother | with multiple attempts. It's a good point. Historically, they were | probably vfork(2), but even so... If anyo

Re: [Nmh-workers] multiple -prefer options

>i've also cherry-picked them to 1.7-release, but won't push those until >someone takes a look at the changes, and perhaps tries them as well. I've looked at those changes; they seem fine to me for cherry-picking to 1.7. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing l

[Nmh-workers] Why Attempt fork(2) up to Five Times?

Hi, I fixed a bug today with one of the many copies of a for-loop that calls fork(2) up to fives times until it succeeds. Ken wondered why we bother with multiple attempts. It's a good point. Historically, they were probably vfork(2), but even so... If anyone knows a good reason then pipe up p

Re: [Nmh-workers] whom(1) Violates RFC 5321: Closes SMTP After RSET.

Hi Ken, > > I think a QUIT should be sent after the RSET. I suspect if a QUIT > > was sent instead then Postfix might then log that a QUIT occurred > > mid-flow. I've tried rcpt-to then quit and Postfix 3.2.2-1 here didn't log anything unusual. > I think we can change the sm_end() in verify_all