[NatureNS] Re: Irregular and long delays on NatureNS

References: <4572D109.28905.1CDE80@localhost> <007c01c717c1$ab83ff70$9c00a8c0@D968L071> <001301c7193e$0a1566f0$af00a8c0@don> <fa458aef49ef909559ff1df6198685dc@dal.ca> <7.0.1.0.0.20061209101019.05209dc8@ns.sympatico.ca> <00e101c71c82$fe28a030$ca01a8c0@galatea> <81b37ca525b1ee76be431aaae8a1cac0@dal.ca> <20061213001102.vc5l08flomosooks@my2.dal.ca>
From: c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:05:46 -0400
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
Hi Steve,

To actually see what is going on you need to look at the mail  
headers. For example, to start with, let's take a look at your post.  
The Email headers indicate that it was sent on December 13th, not  
December 12 as you indicate below:

Date: December 13, 2006 12:11:02 AM AST

It went from Eastlink through two Dalhousie servers and shortly  
thereafter (13 Dec 2006 00:11:17) was received by the Chebucto  
Community Net. The precedence was set at bulk which puts it at the  
bottom of the heap in terms of mail processing. It was processed a  
day later and sent on to bellnexxia.net (a.k.a. sympatico) on  
December 14 2006 at 00:31:05.

Received: from chebucto.ns.ca (HELO halifax.chebucto.ns.ca)  
([192.75.95.75]) by simip2-ac.bellnexxia.net with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2006  
00:31:05 -0500

Then sympatico sat on it for an hour and it was received in my inbox  
at 1:31 AM. So it took the CCN (Chebucto) 24:20:03 to process the  
message.

In comparison, I have a post that I also received this AM from a  
Yahoo list that I subscribe to. I won't bore readers with all the  
details but it was sent on December 12, 2006 6:56:31 PM, received by  
Yahoo at 12 Dec 2006 22:58:23 AST, and then received by sympatico at  
14 Dec 2006 07:25:13. Also bulk precedence. So it took Yahoo 32:26:50  
to process the post, i.e. 8:05:47 hours longer than it took Chebucto  
to process your post (i.e. 32.5 hrs rather than 24.3 hrs).

Now all this doesn't mean very much, since these are two posts out of  
billions, however, it might indicate that Yahoo and the CCN are  
(based on a sample size of 2 ;->) in the same ball park in terms of  
processing posts. Also, that one really has to look at the mail  
headers to see what is going on.

In general, however, I think that this discussion is barking up the  
wrong tree  ... ;-> The Internet is experiencing huge bursts of spam  
of every description, some of them originating from "zombie" computer  
networks scattered over the Internet; denial of service attacks,  
spread of viruses, etc. Some of these are distributed over large  
parts of the Internet, others are targeted at various servers for  
various lengths of time. This is a topic for system administrators,  
legislators, and policing networks to grapple with so that the  
Internet's functionality isn't destroyed by by the greed and  
stupidity of a few unscrupulous people. Nobody likes this, and the  
consequent delays in delivery of email, etc., but NatureNS  
subscribers have nothing to gain in scrambling around the Internet  
from server to server trying to find some isolated refuge that is  
immune from this affliction. Better to let your ISPs, MLA's, and MP's  
know that you regard this as a problem and that Canada should (for  
its part) move on legislation and measures to stop such nonsense.

All the best!

Chris

On 13-Dec-06, at 12:11 AM, Stephen Shaw wrote:

> Belated 'Hi' to all,      [sent Wednesday 12 Dec, 00:11]
> Pat beat me to the draw in making the same point about "not back to  
> normal". I've had no NatureNS posts for something like a day, then  
> a bunch came in
> starting 7:22 PM this evening, then a second bunch.  Of the 18  
> consecutive ones
> I looked at:
> DELAY            NUMBER WITH THAT DELAY
> 2 to 2.4 days      11
> 1-1.4 days          4
> 0.5 day             1
> 1-2 hours:          2 (both Susan Borkowski -- what's your secret  
> Susan?)
> The last one in the bunch that I counted was from Lois C. asking  
> for info
> regarding a birding trip for the following day. This took 2 days to  
> come
> through, so arrived 1 day too late to be useful.
> On this 'stirring' topic, some serious people have suggested that  
> we should not
> change, or that service may be just as bad elsewhere, or that at  
> least we
> should wait to see if things soon settle down. A slight majority of  
> respondents
> seem to be in this camp. Perhaps the way to go is to wait to see if  
> things are
> still as bad in a couple of weeks, then revisit the issue again  
> (come to think,
> that would be on Boxing Day, maybe not the best timing). Maybe re- 
> think early
> in the New Year?
>  Regarding Dave's comment about potential elitism in a brave new  
> network, I
> took Blake's comment instead to refer to possible mechanisms for  
> effectively
> excluding spammers so they couldn't automatically join or log in,  
> not to a
> desire to exclude supposed undesirables.  Actually I used to enjoy the
> knowledgeable but occasionally incendiary posts from a birder who  
> used to be
> able contribute to NatureNS, but was kicked off a year or two back  
> for going
> over the top...
> Steve
>
> Quoting Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dal.ca>:
>> Hi all:>
>> I don't think Chebucto is back to normal yet. Peter's note was  
>> posted  at 1:45 PM on the afternoon of December 10. It just came  
>> through at  7:35 PM on  December 12th. I recently sent a message   
>> to let people  know of Richard Stern's talk at the Blomidon  
>> Naturalists meeting  (Birding in Panama, for those who may have  
>> missed it when he gave it at  the N.S. Bird Society meeting some  
>> time ago). It still hasn't come  through, and since the meeting  
>> was last night, it can now be ignored.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> PS: I am posting this message at 7:40 PM on December 12th for  
>> those who  might be curious to see how long it takes.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Peter Payzant wrote:
>>
>>> Blake Maybank comments
>>>
>>>> Peter Payzant's recent post suggests the problem will not solve   
>>>> itself quickly.
>>>
>>> I can't tell the future - I was just thinking about the ongoing  
>>> battle  against spam. Chebucto seems to be back to normal at the  
>>> moment, due  in part to an extraordinary effort of the part of  
>>> several volunteers.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to say how Yahoo's performance would compare to   
>>> Chebucto's. Chebucto seems to have been inundated with an  
>>> especially  large amount of spam, which has now died away.