Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, November 01, 2007 16:30:13 +0100 Magnus Hagander
> <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between acceptable delay and what we're often
>> getting. Sure, SMTP should have latency. But a modern SMTP system
>> shouldn't take hours to deliver an email.
>
> Well, when you can guarantee that the network connections between any relay
> server from the originator to the recipient is 100% up 100% of the time ... and
> that the mail server at each of the relays is processing properly 100% of the
> time ... and that there are no network delay issues at any one of the dozen or
> so routers, and ... then talk to me ...
No. All those cases are reasons for acceptable delays. But how often
does say network connectivity go away for an hour? If they do, you need
to better hosting provider.
>> Sure. But I can tell you that *every single time* I've looked at
>> latencies, the problem has been at postgresql.org or hub.org. And in my
>> own case, there is just one relay on the way, usually with a latency of
>> <5 seconds.
>
> Wow, I didn't know you were in Panama ... I have about 12 routers I go through
> from here, creating at least 12 failure points right there ... you being on the
> same network definitely should reduce your latency, we should look into that
> ... what is your IP, so that I can confirm that from our end, we are seeing you
> as being 1 router away also ... maybe bad routing?
Notice, I say 5 *seconds*, not 5 *milliseconds*. And yes, the mx
machines of hub.org *most of the time* deliver in less than 5 seconds,
once it reaches the final hop inside hub.org.
This mail for example hit hub.org 200.46.204.184 (with broken name
lookup, it seems) at 12:48:12 ADT, and arrived on my server at 16:48:14
CET, which means it took *2* seconds.
A couple of minutes delay is perfectly acceptable. A couple of hours is
an indication that something is wrong.
//Magnus