On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 11:50, Mark Gelinas wrote:
> All,
> 
> Both were a matter of requiring approval.  I did the announce one last 
> night,
> and discuss was done this morning.  Ben was not on the approved poster list
> for announce, hence its delay.  And announce was not an approved poster to
> discuss, hence the second delay.  I've now rectified both problems, so 
> things
> should be smoother from here on out.
> 
> If any other chairs required posting approval, let me know.
> The list currently consists of myself, Bruce, Ben, and Paul.

I can do it too (Bruce told me how), and I also told Dave Long,
the MerriLUG coordinator.

> 
> Mark
> 
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:02:43 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> In a message dated: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:45:51 EDT
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >>
> >>> Greetings all,
> >>
> >> Errrr, you sent this at 23:45 LAST NIGHT?
> >> Why am I just now getting it at 10:30a.m. the next day?
> >>
> >> Sure, I'm willing to account for the fact that I wasn't around
> >> between 23:45 and 09:00 this morning, and that my laptop wasn't on.
> >> However, fetchmail *just* dropped this into my GNHLUG folder, which
> >> tells me that my ISP just received it at 10:26.
> >>
> >> Looking at the headers, this e-mail left itchy.ntisys.com at 23:45:55
> >> and was received by rogue.codemeta.com.  It then was received from
> >> rogue by rogue at 06:05:05.  So, it sat around on rogue for over 6
> >> hours?  Then it was sent from rogue back to rogue at 10:13:48, at  which
> >> point it left rogue and made it to my ISP at 10:26:00?
> >>
> >> Bruce, I think your drain might be a little clogged :)
> >
> > It was "clogged" due to waiting approval, which I *think* I did sometime
> > this morning. All messages to the announce list must be approved - and 
> > I'm
> > one of the approvers. (Maybe Ben should be made one too!)
> >
> > One of the "clogging" contributors may be that if sendmail isn't able to
> > immediately connect to a recipient's SMTP server, then the message goes
> > back in the queue and is retried "later" - I don't remember when that
> > "later" is - but I seem to remember its a matter of hours.
> >
> > Beer Disclaimer: My memory is still somewhat foggy - I'm not sure if I
> > approved it last night or this morning - if anyone has evidence contrary
> > to the above statements, then I'm inclinded to believe them. But please
> > let me know so I can schedule time to sort though the log files and put
> > this "mail is slow" daemon to rest.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnhlug-org mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
> >
> >
-- 
Rob Lembree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Gnhlug-org mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org

Reply via email to