[plug] Email delivery WAS: Wanted: dirt cheap wireless LAN

[bob]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:45 pm, levsky at rave.iinet.net.au wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:51:04AM +0800, bob wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:39 am, Daniel Pearson wrote:
> > > iiNet's servers have always been notoriously slow..
> >
> > Being paranoid, I still think the answer is some sort of carnivore.
>
> You *are* being paranoid.  

Hey, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get me. 
Besides, what have I , other than your assertion, proving that they're 
_not_ monitoring :).

>Beware, or the black helicopters will come.
> iiNet is not monitoring your email.

Who said anything about _iinet_ monitoring? Its the _aliens_. They're in it 
with the gays! They're building landing strips for gay Martians!!

(oooh spoooky, spellcheck thinks "gays" should be replaced by "grays"!!!!!) 

Oh, BTW :-)

>  Look for a technical explanation
> first.  Check the headers and see what path the email actually took.

Yes I did that... The sample email I have to hand has a path; other server - 
me, nothing in between. I was actually on the phone to the person who sent 
the mail when they sent it (the header time agrees) It hits their gateway 
and goes into a black hole. (yes, I know, now you're going to say its 
_their_ server... trouble is the person sending the email is one of the 
admis at the site and maintains the server was up and running normally at 
the time. Logs show stats=sent)  

> Try sending emails using direct telnet from one server to the other
> server's smtp port and seeing what the delay is.

I will be doing so, next time it happens.

About the only thing I can think of that would explain it is the "sent" is 
not true and that there is a delay with DNS or some such. Which isn't 
nearly as interesting as some conspiracy theory :).

> Cheers
>
> Mark

-- 
There is only one word for aid that is genuinely without strings,
and that word is blackmail.
		-- Colm Brogan