[[ This is expansion on the digression, but I'm not changing the title, so that this thread remains the same one thread and not be split by whatever runs the marc.info servers. ]]
Thanks, Darac! This tells a lot! Allow me more time to study your very kind explanation! (I also first have to make a correction/addition for the real topic of this thread that I started.) On 160923-15:58+0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:39:04PM +0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > >Sure I forgot the... [see below] > > > >On 160923-15:32+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > > > >> http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&m=147448664132307&w=2 > >> but for clarity I'll attach the same file here as ClausAssmann.tar > > > >ClausAssmann.tar attached to this email. > > > >--- > >A digression, don't read below if you don't have the time to. > > > >However, I'm curious, if at all this is possible (time on an eventual > >reader who would respond) to know why I got my own mail back (to be able > >to send this errata) only after some 55 minutes. > > Check the Received: headers in your message to see what took so long. > Here are the headers as I got them, with some extraneous lines removed: > > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from remy.darac.org.uk > by remy.darac.org.uk (Dovecot) with LMTP id ENyWHX875VcGIAAAjhN3oQ > for <[email protected]>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:26:07 +0100 > Received: from gbnet.net (shtjevan.gbnet.net [194.70.142.36]) > by remy.darac.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3sgbHy6ZZKz1DnNg > for <[email protected]>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:25:50 +0100 (BST) > Received: (qmail 1887 invoked by uid 611); 23 Sep 2016 14:21:43 -0000 > Received: (qmail 1792 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2016 14:20:37 -0000 > Received: from davin.gbnet.net (194.70.142.37) > by shtjevan.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 23 Sep > 2016 14:20:37 -0000 > Received: (qmail 22684 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2016 14:02:36 -0000 > Received: from mail-1.fido.net (84.246.192.5) > by davin.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 23 Sep 2016 > 14:02:36 -0000 > Received: from alt1.smtp6.plusvps.com ([89.201.164.169]) > by mail-1.fido.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for [email protected]; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:02:35 +0100 > Received: from lin16.mojsite.com ([178.218.164.164]) > by smtp6.plusvps.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for [email protected]; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:02:22 +0200 > Received: from 78-0-197-250.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([78.0.197.250]:58204 > helo=g0n.localdomain) > by lin16.mojsite.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for [email protected]; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:18 +0200 > Received: by g0n.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) > id F373B43; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:34 +0200 (CEST) > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:34 +0200 > > The Received: headers are prepended to the list, so we read it > Twitter-style (i.e. bottom to top). You composed the message at 15:32. > Very quickly it passed to lin15.mojsite.com. However, it then waited > there until 16:02 before being passed to smtp6.plusvps.com. The next > major delay is within gbnet.net. davin.gbnet.net receives the message at > 14:02 (16:02 your time), but only passes it to shtjevan.gbnet.net at > 14:20 (16:20 your time). The final delay comes when gbnet.net is > delivering the message to my server, and for that, we can assume this is > the time taken for the mailing list software to send the message to > multiple recipients. > > > > >Repeating: 55 minutes it took me (tried multiple times, as I realized > >pretty quickly that I forgot the attachment, and tried right away to get > >my own mail from mutt-users and send this attachment. > > > >How fast was in the case of this previous email of mine the Marc.info > >archive, and was it due to it being slow or was it due to my provider, > >whom I have beef with, decided to molest me again > >(see http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/ for a little on > >that) > >? > > > >I also checked the pages: > >http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&r=1&b=201609&w=2 > >and that previous email of mine really didn't show for about the same 55 > >minutes, which I know perfectly can be because of the same page being > >kept in cache at the providers and not being renewed. > > > >Thanks if anybody replies. (Pls. don't count for certain that I would > >receive your private email, they often just don't send those if they > >know I wouldn't be able to know about them and/or wouldn't be able to proof > >anything.) > >-- > >Miroslav Rovis > >Zagreb, Croatia > >http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr > > > > > > -- > For more information, please reread. -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
