On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:56:20AM +0800, Lebesgue Yu wrote:
> 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.
No real need to read the c
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 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:06:44PM -
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?
W
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > > > reasonably small.
> > > >
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > > reasonably small.
> > >
> > > I see one hash table that i
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > reasonably small.
> >
> > I see one hash table that is indexed by the queue ID, so this
> > would involve one hash-table lookup per
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > reasonably small.
>
> I see one hash table that is indexed by the queue ID, so this
> would involve one hash-table lookup per transport:
Not sure what "thi
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:10:29PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > /* qmgr_job_find - lookup job associated with named message and
> > > transport */
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Instead of traversing the message job list, we use single per
> > > * transport ha
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:10:29PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > /* qmgr_job_find - lookup job associated with named message and
> > transport */
> >
> > /*
> > * Instead of traversing the message job list, we use single per
> > * transport hash table. This is better (at leas
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Lebesgue Yu:
> > > Hi:
> > > ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> > > transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> > > following:
> > > ? ?postsuper
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Lebesgue Yu:
> > Hi:
> > ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> > transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> > following:
> > ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; p
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:19:26PM +0800, Lebesgue Yu wrote:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
Don't release a
Lebesgue Yu:
> Hi:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
Don't do this. It triggers a bug with the "new" queue mana
Lebesgue Yu:
> Hi:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
>
> ? ?In my thought, it couldn't be sent out with the wro
Hi:
As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
following:
postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
In my thought, it couldn't be sent out with the wrong transport.
But when I re
15 matches
Mail list logo
