Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E644C9FA3AC for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64511-02-3 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7269FB3AA for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BBCB47510 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62372-05; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fserv.hub.org (blk-137-93-67.eastlink.ca [24.137.93.67]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4B1B4750B; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [192.168.1.2]) by fserv.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5734E129; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:00 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:47:30 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Magnus Hagander , Andrew Sullivan cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: what is up with the PG mailing lists? Message-ID: <1127E6493CBA8A29F343C4D7@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <4729F105.30704@hagander.net> References: <25716.1193887595@sss.pgh.pa.us> <26669.1193891360@sss.pgh.pa.us> <47299585.7030402@hagander.net> <47299957.5020605@postgresql.org> <2968.1193919208@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071101080959.49f3087b@scratch> <20071101152333.GM27676@crankycanuck.ca> <4729F105.30704@hagander.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/31 X-Sequence-Number: 12809 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, November 01, 2007 16:30:13 +0100 Magnus Hagander wrote: > There's a difference between acceptable delay and what we're often > getting. Sure, SMTP should have latency. But a modern SMTP system > shouldn't take hours to deliver an email. Well, when you can guarantee that the network connections between any relay server from the originator to the recipient is 100% up 100% of the time ... and that the mail server at each of the relays is processing properly 100% of the time ... and that there are no network delay issues at any one of the dozen or so routers, and ... then talk to me ... > Sure. But I can tell you that *every single time* I've looked at > latencies, the problem has been at postgresql.org or hub.org. And in my > own case, there is just one relay on the way, usually with a latency of > <5 seconds. Wow, I didn't know you were in Panama ... I have about 12 routers I go through from here, creating at least 12 failure points right there ... you being on the same network definitely should reduce your latency, we should look into that ... what is your IP, so that I can confirm that from our end, we are seeing you as being 1 router away also ... maybe bad routing? - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHKfUS4QvfyHIvDvMRAuyCAJ0dfZImj9c9c/ND2Oqkj2+pgh3HhACfSM1Y XwmNsYAj2dl8V9pWiGpmvq8= =SbaF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----