Thank you. I understand what happened and know how to avoid that. But I still quite understand the souce code, I will look into the source code carefully to understand the meanings each hash entry means.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Victor Duchovni<victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:06:44PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > >> > We could instead avoid the problematic per-transport queue-id->job hashes, >> > and allow "nqmgr" to tolerate multiple instances of the queue file, >> > just like "oqmgr". >> >> And knowingly write code that can deliver mail twice? > > Well, "at least once" is better than "zero or more times". And the > administrator would really have to go out of his way to make this type > of "more than once" happen. Whichever solution is simplest (or even > none, given how hard one has to try to force this to happen) is likely > acceptable for now. > > -- > Viktor. > > Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. > Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. > > To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit > http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: > <mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> > > If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not > send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put > "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly. >
