|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: too many cleanup
From: Remco Post (r.post
sara.nl)Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 10:52:26 CDT
- Next message: Lars Hecking: "Re: Compiling Postfix for multiple architectures in same source tree?"
- Previous message: Jonathan Bartlett: "Re: Compiling Postfix for multiple architectures in same source tree?"
- Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Maybe reply: Remco Post: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 31-Mar-00 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brad Knowles:
>> At 8:19 AM -0500 2000/3/31, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>> > DO NOT listen to people who suggest editing the cleanup/bounce/defer
>> > process limit fields in master.cf. They give bad advice.
>>
>> Oh. Sorry.
>>
>> Given that this is the case, can I make the request that this
>> advice be reflected in the master.cf file, so that hopefully this
>> issue won't come up again?
>
> I will do that, but is is not clear if it will help. Postfix is
> already littered with lots of "DO NOT <whatever>" notices.
>
> Wietse
Why are these configureble at all, if it's so harmfull to set limit this?
Could postfix be made to ignore these directives in the master.cf, and only use
a hardcoded unlimitted value?
--- Met vriendelijke groeten,Remco Post
SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam Facility Management Tel. +31 20 592 8080 Fax. +31 20 668 3167
- Next message: Lars Hecking: "Re: Compiling Postfix for multiple architectures in same source tree?"
- Previous message: Jonathan Bartlett: "Re: Compiling Postfix for multiple architectures in same source tree?"
- Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Maybe reply: Remco Post: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: too many cleanup"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]