Re: what is up with the PG mailing lists?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, November 01, 2007 16:30:13 +0100 Magnus Hagander
<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> 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(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)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-----