Thread: What is the deal with mailing lists?
Hello, Is it me or are we regularly seeing HOURS between posts. It is pretty ridiculous that the archives which are rsynced are regularly ahead of actual mail delivery. Even worse that we can go hours between delivery. At the time of this writing, my last post from hackers is 5:54 AM PST. I was speaking with DarcyB and his was hours before that. DarcyB and I are both mailing list relays... If anything we should get email before anyone else ;) I just checked our relay queue and we only have 33 requests all of which are things like can not reach host. So email that goes through our machines is working. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:26:18AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it me or are we regularly seeing HOURS between posts. It is pretty
> ridiculous that the archives which are rsynced are regularly ahead of
> actual mail delivery.
>
> Even worse that we can go hours between delivery.
>
> At the time of this writing, my last post from hackers is 5:54 AM PST.
> I was speaking with DarcyB and his was hours before that. DarcyB and I
> are both mailing list relays... If anything we should get email before
> anyone else ;)
>
> I just checked our relay queue and we only have 33 requests all of which
> are things like can not reach host. So email that goes through our
> machines is working.
I find headers to be very valuable for diagnosing this kind of thing...
Received: from mx2.hub.org (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254])
by flake.decibel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73E815225
for <decibel@decibel.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:20:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
by mx2.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9C6D21C11;
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:20:04 +0000 (GMT)
X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8449DD654;
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:19:26 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 00611-06; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:19:17 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from hosting.commandprompt.com (128.commandprompt.com [207.173.200.128])
by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F329DD64B;
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:19:15 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (fc1smp [66.93.38.87])
(authenticated bits=0)
by hosting.commandprompt.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAUHDHQa024087;
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:13:17 -0800
Message-ID: <438DE0BA.1050705@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:26:18 -0800
It looks like it took a total of 7:20 for that email to make it to me.
In a case of pot calling kettle black ;P, it took your machine 5:58 to
get it to postgresql.org. Of course that's assuming everyone's clock is
in sync, and the clock on the machine you sent the email from appears to
be 13 minutes fast.
Anyway, next time you're seeing a delay take a look at the headers and
see if you can pin down what the bottleneck is.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
It looks like it took a total of 7:20 for that email to make it to me.
In a case of pot calling kettle black ;P, it took your machine 5:58 to
get it to postgresql.org. Of course that's assuming everyone's clock is
in sync, and the clock on the machine you sent the email from appears to
be 13 minutes fast.
Anyway, next time you're seeing a delay take a look at the headers and
see if you can pin down what the bottleneck is.
Thank you for that... except that, I was talking about HOUR[n] delays not 13 minutes.
As stated in the original email, I am having reports of emails taking much, much longer
then 13 minutes and in fact for some odd reason, I still don't have your reply in my jd@cmd
mailbox.
My current last email from the list was 3 hours and twenty minutes ago but the archives already
have them, as does gmail. If this was just me that was having this problem it would be one thing
and easily diagnosable (in theory) but it isn't. There are others.
Joshua D. Drake
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Joshua Drake <linuxpoet@gmail.com> writes:
>> Anyway, next time you're seeing a delay take a look at the headers and
>> see if you can pin down what the bottleneck is.
> Thank you for that... except that, I was talking about HOUR[n] delays not 13
> minutes.
Yeah, so ... where's the blockage according to your Received: headers?
Personally I've been seeing list turnaround on the order of one minute,
across all the lists, since Marc fixed whatever he fixed about a week
ago (that was before the server changeover). It would seem that the
problem is with a forwarder upstream of you ...
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 14:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Joshua Drake <linuxpoet@gmail.com> writes: > >> Anyway, next time you're seeing a delay take a look at the headers and > >> see if you can pin down what the bottleneck is. > > > Thank you for that... except that, I was talking about HOUR[n] delays not 13 > > minutes. > > Yeah, so ... where's the blockage according to your Received: headers? > > Personally I've been seeing list turnaround on the order of one minute, > across all the lists, since Marc fixed whatever he fixed about a week > ago (that was before the server changeover). It would seem that the > problem is with a forwarder upstream of you ... I actually think I might know one part of it at least. Which is I only whitelist the hub (and my own) relays... Which means if it hits any other relay, then that message will get greylisted. I have asked marc for the other relay ips so I can whitelist them and see if the problem persists. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/