eiannucci@tin.it writes:
> I'm trying to understand what's happening to my messages ...:-)
Looks to me like the principal delay is at your end. Note the
timestamps in the Received: headers:
Received: from relay2.pgsql.com (relay2.pgsql.com [64.49.215.143])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2M9fjub029237
for <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:41:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by relay2.pgsql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0A9E767
for <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:32:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id E854F47636C; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:22:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp4.cp.tin.it (vsmtp4.tin.it [212.216.176.224])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 857F7476351; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:22:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (80.181.165.152) by smtp4.cp.tin.it (6.5.033)
id 3E71D1150036796D; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:22:21 +0100
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 296B6875D; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:43:30 +0100 (CET)
The time delay from smtp4.cp.tin.it to my machine looks to be only
twenty minutes --- but if the first Received: is accurate then the
message sat on 80.181.165.152 for nearly ten hours.
regards, tom lane
