quarantine release might lose mail?

[Glenn Steen]

2009/12/16 Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com>:
> On December 15, 2009 10:52:46 AM -0500 Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Especially not, as in this case, where the fix is trivial and especially
>> not when the problem and solution is known.  I will post my qrelease
>> program later today.
>
> Here it is.  One thing I learned is that the queue file name includes
> a timestamp, so the chance of a collision is much, much less than I'd
> originally guessed.  Very very close to zero, I would expect.  But
So now you see why I mentioned things like "highly theoretical" etc:-).
It's not really a timestamp, as such, being just the current
millisecond... But I see you've got that:-). And the inode reuse is
highly dependant on how you've partitioned your storage... If one has
a ... "lazy"... scheme (like only a big / and a very smallish /boot,
which is what I'd recommend for most systems these days, due to modern
HW and filesystem anatomy), the inode reuse problem is a non-issue.
But it is nice that you took the time to type this up, for those who
do quarantine as queue files, and who really perceive this as a
problem.

> the fix is trivial and guarantees correctness.  Maybe this can make
> it onto the wiki page.
Yes it can! And you're the chap to do it;-).
Just register and edit away...:-).
Personally, I find it less than nice when larger (more than a few
lines) scripts are quoted in code segments, so you could as well
upload a file and publish that... Perhaps one should ... tidy... some
of the other stuff too. As is, I find the bias of "methods" and "tips"
for queue file management a bit ... cluttery (if there is such a
word:-).

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se