On 21/02/18 06:47, Jasen Betts via Exim-dev wrote: >> Why not just "msg:rcpt:timeout" ? What distinction were >> you implying? > > That suggests to me a TCP or SMTP timeout which will normally > be retried. retry timeout exceeded is permanent. maybe > "msg:rcpt:expired" is better? > > Do you want me to write up a patch and submit it to the bug tracker. > > I guess I should because that way I can include updates to the > documentation.
Yes please. On the name, my arguments would be that a TCP-level timeout would have a name starting "tcp" (we already have tcp:connect and tcp:close)... but it doesn't matter too much. Your original is fine (and leaves other possibilities open). -- Cheers, Jeremy -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
