Re: [802SEC] RE: Reflector messed up
Buzz,
My observations do not support your hypotheses. When I post to one of my
reflectors, I get a copy back very quickly. As I have said, my EFM
reflector
has over 1300 subscribers. Subscribers who appear far down on the list seem
to experience a longer delay.
I doubt that majordomo makes the kind of tests that you describe.
Howard
Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
>Hmmmmm, I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. In almost every case, it seems that the excessive delay occurs when the ultimate destination address matches the source address, but others on the list tend to get their copies in a reasonable time frame. This suggests at least the 2 following hypotheses:
>
>1. The list processor is recognizing DA=SA as a courtesy copy, assigning it a lower queuing priority than the other copies being sent, hence the variable and sometimes excessive delays.
>
>2. The list processor is recognizing DA=SA as a possibly looping message to some other list, and forcing it to undergo a significant but variable delay so as to prevent a storm of looping messages.
>
>Any other network gurus out there care to venture hypotheticals which Bill can pass on to IEEE staff for further scrutiny ???
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:15 PM
>To: mjsherman@research.att.com
>Cc: M.Klerer@flarion.com; pat_thaler@agilent.com; bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] RE: Reflector messed up
>
>
>At 23:52 09/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>Yesterday, I sent out an updated interpretation prior to Mark's e-mail
>>to the reflector (see attached). Yet somehow, Mark's e-mail and much of
>>the ensuing discussion came out before I received my own copy of the
>>updated interpretation. This happened even though I actually sent
>>Mark's e-mail to the reflector considerably after my own updated
>>interpretation. Boy is this reflector messed up.
>>
>
>Similarly, I have just received my copy of a post I made to the .17
>reflector at 9AM on the 4th of April, and I saw a response to my post 2
>days ago. 6 days delay seems just a tad excessive.
>
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>
>
>