> I think what's most interesting about this is we've found a case > where the pool's simple scoring mechanism isn't enough to identify an > obviously bad server. [...] OTOH, it's only 300ms off. For casual > users who ask one server for the time, this one's close enough to be > useful.
So it's *not* really "an obviously bad server". It may not be good enough for you - certainly isn't for me - but, as you point out, time geeks like us use multiple references so we can toss out a host like this as a falseticker. But for the sort of person who just uses the pool, it probably is quite good enough, and thus shouldn't be thrown out. (Yet - if it's drifting, it'll get worse. But it'll also get thrown out.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
