Confusing log entries

[Ugo Bellavance]

Stephe Campbell wrote:

>No, I don't want to wait for 100, but if I have 11 waiting, why just do one?
>Why not 11? As the subject line suggests, I'm confused.
>
>

MailScanner takes whatever it finds in the queue, up to a certain amount

If a MailScanner process is free and sees that there some messages, it
takes them, even if there is only one there.

>Steve Campbell
>campbell at cnpapers.com
>Charleston Newspapers
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <raymond at PROLOCATION.NET>
>To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:22 PM
>Subject: Re: Confusing log entries
>
>
>
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jan 19 11:45:14 kanawha MailScanner[14317]: New Batch: Found 11 messages
>>>waiting
>>>Jan 19 11:45:14 kanawha MailScanner[14317]: New Batch: Scanning 1
>>>
>>>
>messages,
>
>
>>>1727 bytes
>>>
>>>
>>>Am I really only scanning one messages at a time (as it seems)
>>>
>>>
>sometimes?
>
>
>>>Are all of the above entries proper?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, do you want to wait till you get 100 ? =)
>>
>>Bye,
>>Raymond.
>>
>>