Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BE29F95CC for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:23:43 -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 28417-01-8 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:23:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B9C9FC76D for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:16:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B54B4755E for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:16:50 -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 16731-03; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:16:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fserv.hub.org (blk-137-93-67.eastlink.ca [24.137.93.67]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1896FB4755F; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:16:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [192.168.1.2]) by fserv.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEC54E129; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:16:31 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:16:01 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Magnus Hagander cc: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: what is up with the PG mailing lists? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4729F7D2.6050608@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> <1127E6493CBA8A29F343C4D7@ganymede.hub.org> <4729F7D2.6050608@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: 200711/33 X-Sequence-Number: 12811 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, November 01, 2007 16:59:14 +0100 Magnus Hagander wrote: > No. All those cases are reasons for acceptable delays. But how often > does say network connectivity go away for an hour? If they do, you need > to better hosting provider. You really don't have a clue on how an SMTP server works, do you? If delivery fails, it backs up and tries again *later* ... if there is a high volume of email going through said server, *later* could very well be 1 hour ... and, in fact, its an incremental backup, so it actually works out to be something like: Try now, fail, try in 5 minutes, fail, try in 10 minutes, fail, try in 20 minutes, fail, etc ... I'm not sure if its a simple '2x' algorithm, but the delay between attempts does get progressively greater, so if it fails after trying at '40 minutes', then it will be another hour and a half after *that* beofre it will try again, etc ... > A couple of minutes delay is perfectly acceptable. A couple of hours is > an indication that something is wrong. Well, when you see a couple of hours delay, then do something *useful* and let me know ... the only *useful* reports I've had in the past 24 hours dealt with a problem that Tom reported yesterday and that I fixed within minutes of him reporting ... the headers that you and Bruce sent me were *from that problem* ... - ---- 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) iD8DBQFHKfvB4QvfyHIvDvMRAgApAJ4vB/bLJJaclnOD+OWG0J3P75YBgQCfdsG+ w8+K+VDaTerVojFGd3+DyHU= =dynu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----