From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? Date: 30 Jan 2004 09:45:14 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87oesmt61r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075474929 14553 80.91.224.253 (30 Jan 2004 15:02:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 30 16:02:02 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ama9h-0006sO-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:02:01 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ama9h-0007OA-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:02:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AmZy7-0008Bt-Mz for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:50:03 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AmZvw-00074w-SK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:47:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AmZvE-0006Zk-QN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:47:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AmZtU-0005F2-Au for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:45:16 -0500 Original-Received: from asado.iro.umontreal.ca (asado.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.84]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34E9211AB; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:45:14 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: by asado.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 711168C6F9; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:45:14 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87oesmt61r.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Original-Lines: 26 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-0.001, requis 5, BAYES_44 -0.00) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19574 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19574 > properly configured system. (What would be "too much delay" in > situations where something wasn't actually wrong and was legitimately > causing the delay?) If sendmail is called with -oeq, it should only cause delay if there's a problem such as "your hub is down or slow". But if you access your hub through a 56K connection and send a 50MB attachment, then you'll suffer a serious legitimate delay (unless you use a local queue of course). > Personally, I can't imagine it being OK to leave things with potential > for silent mail loss, especially not as the default, even if fixing it > might introduce a 5 minute delay. If there is a 5 minute delay then > that just tells me that my MTA is broken (probably misconfigured), or > perhaps my hardware is bad, etc., and that I need to look in to it. > Of course even if I can't fix the delay, *and* I don't mind the extra > risk, I can always decide to set mail-interactive to nil. This issue > could even be a FAQ. I agree. But right now the mail-interactive setting of t implies a slower delivery than -oeq (it might try to contact the destination which will sooner or later be unavailable). I.e. right now you can choose between "fast and dangerous" or "very slow and safer". I'd like the default to be inbetween (i.e. -oeq). Stefan