Bill Hooper wrote in USMA 17245: >What's the big deal about the time when messages are sent and received? Does >anyone out there really think that it is supposed to be instantaneous? > >There are delays at every server the message has to go through. In the >extreme case, when a receiving server is down, the sending server might hold >the message for days until it finally can get it through. > >I'm looking at my list of messages received and I see, for example, several >from Joe Reid that all were sent (according to the clock in HIS computer) at >3:50 pm and all of which I received at 4:06 pm (according to the clock in my >computer), a 16 minute delay. Another from Joe was sent at 9:41 am and >received at 9:51 am, only a ten minute delay. Then there is one (also from >Joe) that was sent at 8:42 pm and received at 8:11 am THE NEXT DAY! It was >sent on Nov. 30 and received on Dec. 1. > >Why is everyone getting so upset by this perfectly normal and common >occurance?
I was not upset, merely curious. I thought that the time stated on messages was the time of receipt, and I wanted to know why the time on a USMA message that Duncan received was 14 minutes later than the time on the same message that I received. It would now appear that the USMA server sent the message to Duncan 14 minutes later than it sent the message to me. I have seen newspaer reports about long distance telephone conversations being carried on over Internet. That seems to me as impossible. I can understand that a voice might be sent over Internet, but I can't imagine how a conversation could be handled by Internet because of the inherent delays. I suspect the reports originated because innumerate journalists don't know the difference between a transmission and a converstioin. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
