From: mouss (usebsdfree.fr)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2006 - 21:58:38 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

martin f krafft wrote:
> Dear Wietse, dear all,
>
> Thank you for your reply, in which you point me to
>
>
>> man 1 at
>>
>
> I do feel silly now for not giving more background.
>
> Of course I know at(1), but there are several reasons I don't want
> to use it:
> - it requires a shell process for every delayed mail echo
> "sendmail < my.msg" | at whenever
>

so what? if you really fear that, you can write it in perl or in C, and
make the latter talk smtp (instead of running sendmail)....

can you provide more/better args?

> - if some{thing,body} removes my.msg before at runs, tough luck.
> In fact, I don't really see a point why I should leave my.msg
> around. Of course, I could use a tempfile, which I'd have to
> delete afterwards.
>

why? the message will still be around anyway. just because it is under
/var/spool/postfix doesn't change things.

> - at has a lot of overhead in general and is certainly not the
> right tool to offer delayed mail service to thousand of users
> (IMHO, YMMV).
>

I' like to understand the overhead of at. mostly compared to the
overhead of running a unix system.

> I am sure there are other reasons. Having this feature in postfix
> seems (to me, I am a layman) to be not very intrusive, yet clean and
> rather logical.
>

I'm not a postfix developer so I'll leave this to WW & Co.
> FYI: here's the source of the feature request:
> http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.06.06-delayed-mail
>
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]