On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Vicki Brown wrote:
> Great thing, this digest.
>
> One odd thing about it, though. Can someone explain the ordering?
> It's not by Date... I've interspersed the table of contents with the
> actual message headers from within the digest. As you can see, the
> dates increase, then go back down, up, down...
>
> Is this a well-known-thing? Something holding up the mail somewhere?
Yes, and Yes. Due to the subject matter discussed on this list, our
posts trigger the administrivia filters more often than not. Our list
maintainer must work overtime approving all the bounces this list
generates. Subscribers to the regular list can examine the headers of the
list postings, and see which posts take an extra loop thru the
list-owner's account. Of the messages you mention here, all but two took
this extra loop, and one of them seems to have looped thru the
maintainer's account twice!
In fact, your post seemed to take almost a five-day detour. Here's the
sequence of Received: headers as I got them:
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com
(8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA13348; Sat,
10 Apr 1999 13:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1)
id NAA13338 for majordomo-users@greatcircle.com; Sat,
10 Apr 1999 13:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cfcl.com ([205.158.144.193]) by honor.greatcircle.com
(8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA06845 for
<Majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:40:52 -0700
(PDT)
I've annotated your list with the timestamp when the list maintainer
approved the message and sent it back to the major. While they are still
not in strict chronological sequence, they are all within a few minutes of
each other. I don't know enough about sendmail to explain the re-ordering
within a few minutes...
>
> >Majordomo-Users-Digest Monday, April 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 014
> >In this issue:
>
> > Adding Footers to posted messages
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:48:19 -0500 (EST)
approved 4 Apr 11:27:37
>
> > Re: mj_create script question
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 17:07:28 -0800
approved 4 Apr 11:33:52
>
> > Returned mail: unknown mailer error 9 (fwd)
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:21:04 -0500 (EST)
approved 4 Apr 11:33:32
>
> > Re:
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 17:04:54 -0800
approved 4 Apr 11:33:56
>
> > Re: Majorcool - Create List
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 17:14:20 -0800
approved 4 Apr 11:34:03
>
> > [none]
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:25:22 -0500 (GMT-0500)
approved 4 Apr 11:32:53
>
> > [none]
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:19:57 -0500 (GMT-0500)
approved 4 Apr 11:32:58
>
> > Re: newbie questions
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:36:38 -0500
approved 4 Apr 11:32:49
>
> > maillog error.
> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:24:03 +1000
approved 4 Apr 11:35:26
>
> > looping
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:47:13 -0500
approved 4 Apr 11:33:45
>
> > Allowing Only few domains
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:03:47 -0500
approved 4 Apr 11:27:41
>
> > majordomo 2
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:15:58 -0500
approved 4 Apr 11:27:50
>
> > logs
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:19:52 -0800
approved 4 Apr 11:27:05
>
> > Re: Majordomo 1.94.4?
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:05:20 -0600
approved 4 Apr 11:28:04
>
> > Majordomo Internationalization
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:58:00 +0200
approved 31 Mar 19:47:56 and again 4 Apr 11:28:13
>
> > Re: newbie questions
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 01:56:22 -0400
did not require approval
>
> > Re: your mail
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 00:58:59 -0400 (EDT)
- did not require approval
>
> ------------------------------
--
Rick Green
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft has just announced it is renaming Windows NT version 5 to
"Windows 2000."
Is that the ultimate millennium bug or what?
References:
|
|
