It was written.... The delay depends on a lot of things. Here is some general non-specific info. First, it fairly frequently happens that someone subscribes to the list, then gets a different email address, or just posts from a different one, and to the list it becomes a "non-member" submission. There are also some regular list contributors who have never bothered to subscribe so their posts are always manually approved. I TRY to go through all the "posts held for moderation" twice a day. However, due to work and believe it or not, tending to MY collection, sometimes I get backlogged for a day or even a couple days. It's not uncommon for 200+ emails to be waiting moderation (on each list) each time I do it. It's not a 5 minute affair to go through each of them and approve/discard them. The list does get hit with pretty significant amounts of SPAM even with keyword filters further making this very time consuming. Another reason for delays is believe it or not a suprisingly large number of people try to use that "dynamic DNS" crap which is sorely unreliable, or try to host their own mail or web service on a cable or xDSL or even dialup (hence the dyndns stuff). WHY do people who get a tiny DSL or cable connection think it's so cool to run their own services? These connections were meant for one thing - websurfing (they are asymetric channels) - NOT mail or web serving or even worse, hosting your own DNS. Unless they are very carefully watching their mail logs, most of the time they don't even know that fairly often their mail system isn't reachable. So all the list emails going to them fill up my mail queue with "timed out waiting to connect to host....", or "host unreachable...". So often many sets of complete list traffic sit in my mail queue. The problem is, each time a sendmail queue runner wakes up on my mail server, it has to go through the entire mail queue. Not just for regular list traffic but for all these emails that were rejected by the target server the first time or two, which delays everyone elses traffic. I suspect I'm running into a "cascading queue runner" effect, where the queue run times are set fairly short and another queue runner is started before the first one finishes which compounds the problem with locking, etc. These people generally are unaware that their "coolness" effort is affecting others. Sorry for going off on this tangent - pet peeve. More often than not, the delays people have seen are the result of other mail servers along the way, not mine - as was thankfully pointed out in this posting by the listing of the server hops and transit times. On a couple of occasions we have had problems on my end I will admit, but most often that's not the case. There is definitely some additional tuning to sendmail that I need to do. I just haven't had the time yet. Right now my personal classiccmp email address has well over 800 emails in it that are mostly things I need to address. My work email is much worse. I am truely sorry to the people who have emailed me and I haven't responded yet, but with those volumes it's hard to even motivate to start when one gets behind. And I have been behind lately mostly because I have spent some time with my own collection as of late. Not to mention the fact that... well, perhaps I am a little irked that people think a 10 minute post to receive cycle is slow. Ah well, I'll get there :) Jay --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

I've only just received this one and it's now 19:43 GMT on the 10th! Here are the headers with email addresses munged: Return-path: <cctech-bounces(a)classiccmp.org> Received: from punt-3.mail.demon.net by mailstore for witchy(a)######.demon.co.uk id 1A7ys2-0005bK-8o; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:36:58 +0000 Received: from [213.161.76.87] (helo=neptune.easily.co.uk) by punt-3.mail.demon.net with esmtp id 1A7ys2-0005bK-8o for witchy(a)######.demon.co.uk; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:07:58 +0000 Received: from huey.classiccmp.org (huey.classiccmp.org [209.145.140.36]) by neptune.easily.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC539AA3 for <cctech(a)###############.co.uk>uk>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:07:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from huey.classiccmp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9AF8nH6059804; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:08:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cctech-bounces(a)classiccmp.org) Received: from he302war.uk.vianw.net (he302war.uk.vianw.net [195.102.244.165]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9A5T1H3056839 for <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>rg>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:29:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from pete(a)##########.u-net.com) Received: from [62.172.27.116] (helo=mindy.dunnington.u-net.com) by he302war.uk.vianw.net with asmtp (Exim 3.22 #5) id 1A7pk1-0003IQ-00 for cctalk(a)classiccmp.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:23:05 +0100 Received: (from pete@localhost) by mindy.dunnington.u-net.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/PNT2.0) id h9A5AKjM023986 for cctalk(a)classiccmp.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:10:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:10:20 +0100 (BST) From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)##########.u-net.com> Message-Id: <10310100610.ZM23984(a)mindy.dunnington.u-net.com> In-Reply-To: John Lawson <jpl15(a)#####.com> "Posting propagation delays" (Oct 9, 22:24) References: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0310092221400.7191(a)panix2.panix.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:37:55 -0500 Cc: Subject: Re: Posting propagation delays X-BeenThere: cctech(a)classiccmp.org