On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:59:36PM EDT, Bob Proulx wrote: > Chris Jones wrote:
> > I had posted the following obfuscated explanation a couple of hours > > ago but since I was subscribed under a different address, it never > > made it to the list. > > > > :-( > > Actually it seems to have made it to the okay. No need for an unhappy > face. You do not need to be subscribed to post to a bug reporting > mailing list. But addresses that are not subscribed are held for > human review before approval. If it is an address that posts multiple > times then we usually add it to the list just like subscribed > addresses so there won't be a delay subsequently. Thanks for filling me in.. Wasn't aware of this. I used the gnu lists' "change address" option in the meantime but I was not expecting to see my earlier post "converted" and eventually show up.. ever. > Looking at the timestamps it appears you posted the message at > 14:08:08 -0400 on your machine and it was received by monty-python 39 > seconds before that at 21 Mar 2009 14:07:29 -0400. You might want to > adjust your clock. :-) [17:45:09][r...@turki:~]# date; ntpdate-debian Sat Mar 21 17:45:23 EDT 2009 21 Mar 17:45:31 ntpdate[32504]: step time server 128.10.19.24 offset -42.229268 sec Seems to have only been off by 8 seconds? > Then because the address was unknown it sat waiting for a human > moderator to approve the message for 1h15m20s when it was approved at > 21 Mar 2009 15:22:49 -0400 and sent through to the mailing list. I > personally think that is a pretty good turnaround time for an unknown > address to get through the anti-spam human moderation process > considering the total volume of mail going through lists.gnu.org but > since I am one of the mailing list moderators I am biased. :-) I think 1 hour+ is simply amazing. Don't you people have .. er, like weekends and stuff..?? :-) > This beat out this next posting 15m19s later which went through > without delay at 21 Mar 2009 13:38:08 -0600 because it was a known > address. Yes .. I screwed up.. yet again.. My original post was pretty lame .. seeing it twice is an embarrassment especially on a decent list such as this one. :-\ CJ