

Subject: Re: UKNM: Latency
From: Sam Michel
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:11:16 GMT

Hello Mat,

At 20:50 16/03/98 +0000, Mat Morrison wrote:
>Is this really becoming as big an issue with this list as I think it is?
>My last email took 77:49 hours from sending to retrieval -- and I
>couldn't remember reading it (short-term memory thing, no doubt).

There's two factors that affect the latency of messages going through the
list. Firstly, there's the server, which is pretty nippy these days and
turned round the last batch of messages in approx. 45 mins. Secondly,
there's me - which is probably the big delay in getting messages through.

At the moment, email to the list is being moderated by me, which inevitably
slows everything down. However, it does mean junk email doesn't get through
and I can trap messages asking to switch to digest, etc. without them going
to the whole list. The disjointed email is a bit strange, my guess is that
as the server works its way through the list of email addresses to send the
message to, errors occur which can delay progress.

I'm trying to put messages through as quickly as possible, so that they
should come through promptly and in the right order. I'm investigating
different email s/w, which hopefully will speed things up.

>This isn't just me. There are a lot of other messages that appear as
>weird non-sequiturs to disjointed arguments. Dom, I question your
>judgement (not only in the email issue) but in thinking that this list
>was the best way to warn us. Royal Mail, pigeon post, or even a
>messenger with a forked stick could have warned us of this non-existent
>problem in less than the two days it took to get through the system.
>What gives?

Everything, normally!

Toodle Pip

Webmedia Group, 21 Noel St, London, W1V 3RD
T: 0171 494 0812 F: 0171 434 1304 E: samatwebmedia [dot] com
ICQ Pager: 4561042
Webmedia: <http://www.webmedia.com/>http://www.webmedia.com
ShockeR: <http://www.shocker.com/>http://www.shocker.com

  UKNM: Latency, Mat Morrison
