silentlarry Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5054983379z4...138ef4292ac704z Looks to me like this one took nearly two days to pass from mxin2.cesmail.net to filter7.cesmail.net. I'm not an expert at these things... opinions? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Looks that way to me too - 45 hours, all but a minute, between receipt by mxin2.cesmail.net [64.88.168.82] and hand-on to filter7.cesmail.net [64.88.168.68]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5054983379z4...138ef4292ac704z Looks to me like this one took nearly two days to pass from mxin2.cesmail.net to filter7.cesmail.net. I'm not an expert at these things... opinions? I don't get a huge amount of spam on my address, but the last three or four days almost all of them have gotten to my held mail box too late to report. (This is maybe six messages at most.) The latest example -- I last checked my held mail this morning, and this afternoon found this one: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5055272561z8...fb07fb59a8b90cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCop 98 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 This just in: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z5055341342z1...db7beb3dc2df3ez Received: from unknown (192.168.1.86) by filter8.cesmail.net with QMQP; 30 Jun 2011 18:25:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 117.201.35.105) (117.201.35.105) by mxin2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 28 Jun 2011 20:19:47 -0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Case opened with Support, with details offered up to date and pointing to this topic. (Case 45113) Problems with mxin2.cesmail.net [64.88.168.82]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
email_support Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Case opened with Support, with details offered up to date and pointing to this topic. (Case 45113) Problems with mxin2.cesmail.net [64.88.168.82]? Thanks for the samples. We'll look into the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentlarry Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 Case opened with Support, with details offered up to date and pointing to this topic. (Case 45113) Problems with mxin2.cesmail.net [64.88.168.82]? Thanks Farelf, and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I wonder if it's a case of a system clock being wrong. Look at this: Received: from unknown (192.168.1.86) by filter7.cesmail.net with QMQP; 3 Jul 2011 20:13:06 -0000 Received: from nm4.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com (121.101.151.226) by mxin2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 1 Jul 2011 09:56:01 -0000 Received: from [121.101.151.238] by nm4.bullet.mail.in.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jul 2011 20:15:24 -0000 I have been seeing quite a few "too old" messages lately, and I think that rather than a slow handoff, mxin2.cesmail.net has a system date/time some two and a half days off. mx71, on the other hand, looks ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 ...I have been seeing quite a few "too old" messages lately, and I think that rather than a slow handoff, mxin2.cesmail.net has a system date/time some two and a half days off. ...That's the simplest explanation, therefore the most likely - but rectification ought to be so straight-forward ... but it hasn't happened yet, apparently, nor is the "sudden" appearance readily understandable - DST was 3 months ago for instance. From this side of the screen we only see the reaction affected by load factors, not possible to pin down a precisely repeatable time factor by way of verification (varying by nearly 10 hours in the first 6 "sightings" reported - your data pretty much doubles that). I confess I'm intrigued but I guess conjecture is fruitless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 <snip> I think that rather than a slow handoff, mxin2.cesmail.net has a system date/time some two and a half days off. <snip> ...Good eye! Please see SpamCopAdmin's reply in SpamCop Forum "thread" "Getting a number of spams claiming to be to old?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 ...Good eye! Please see SpamCopAdmin's reply in SpamCop Forum "thread" "Getting a number of spams claiming to be to old?" Some show only a day and a half "lag", some show two and a half (see my last, above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
email_support Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Thanks for the samples. We'll look into the problem. This problem was resolved July 5. Sorry for the late notification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.