Re: [802SEC] 802 reflector delays
One explanation for the extreme delay may be the relative length of
the address lists for the efm and sec reflectors. The efm reflector has
about 1300 subscribers (and billq's address is about the 1000th entry),
whereas the sec reflector is much, much smaller (51 entries,
I believe). I am not exactly sure how the resend subsystem works, but
I will venture the guess that messages to each subscriber are transmitted
individually, so it may simply take a lot more time to walk through all
1300 entries of the list. We can test this by comparing the resend
timestamps for messages sent to addresses early in a long list to those
sent to addresses farther down.
In the case of the first message sent by me at 05:22:49 GMT on March
6th, it appears that my pop3 server received the message from
ruebert.ieee.org at 05:31:39 GMT on March 6th, for a delay of roughly
nine minutes, whereas Bill's email server didn't receive it for another
16 hours and 11 minutes. My email address is the very first in the
list on the stds-802-3-efm reflector, whereas Bill's is number 1000 out
of roughly 1300.
You could verify this theory by examining the received timestamps on
the barrage of test messages that Bill recently sent, comparing the
received timestamps of each of the members of the stds-802-sec
list, and determining whether the received timestamps roughly
correspond to the order in which the addresses appear on the list.
I'll wager that (for example) kenneth.alonge@verizon.net consistently
receives message with a later timestamp than tony@jeffree.co.uk.
Any one want to take this wager? The bet is a beer in Dallas.
Proving once again that all animals are equal, but that some are more
equal than others.
For those who are truly in need of a life, another interesting exercise
might be to estimate the time it takes for each copy of the message
to be resent by ruebert.ieee.org, and to examine the delay variation,
and investigate any possible correlation with time of day, server load,
and relaying delays across the internet. The phase of the moon may also
prove to be a contributing factor. From this, we might be able to
postulate an overall Quality of Service profile for sec reflector messages
from the perspective of each member of the list... (feel free to shoot me at
any time) I see an article for IEEE Communications in our future.
Howard
Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>All,
>
>Two recent messages from Howard Frazier to the 802.3ah (EFM) reflector
>have has succeded where I failed. Note the timestamps.
>
>-------------------
>
>Received:
> from ruebert.ieee.org ([140.98.193.10]) by
>prserv.net (in1) with ESMTP id <2003030621473310100fu06ce>;
> Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:47:33 +0000
> Received:
> (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org
>(Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.5) id h265QmH07762 for
> stds-802-3-efm-resent; Thu, 6 Mar 2003
>00:26:48 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID:
> <3E66DB29.9040405@dominetsystems.com>
> Date:
> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:22:49 -0800
> From:
> Howard Frazier <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>
>--------------------
>
>Received:
> from ruebert.ieee.org ([140.98.193.10]) by
>prserv.net (in3) with ESMTP id <20030306213849103034agn6e>;
> Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:38:50 +0000
> Received:
> (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org
>(Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.5) id h266BVC27435 for
> stds-802-3-efm-resent; Thu, 6 Mar 2003
>01:11:31 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID:
> <3E66E57D.6010102@dominetsystems.com>
> Date:
> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:06:53 -0800
> From:
> Howard Frazier <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>
>---------------------
>
>The first message was sent by Howard at 05:22:49 GMT, received by
>ruebert.ieee.org at 05:26:48 GMT and was received from ruebert.ieee.org
>at 21:47:33 GNT, a delay by ruebert.ieee.org of 16 hours, 20 min and 45 sec.
>
>The second message was sent by Howard at 06:06:53 GMT, received by
>ruebert.ieee.org at 06:11:31 GMT and was received from ruebert.ieee.org
>at 21:38:50 GNT, a delay by ruebert.ieee.org of 15 hours, 27 min and 19 sec.
>
>ruebert.ieee.org is the same reflector used by the 802 SEC alias.
>
>Thanks,
>
>wlq
>
>