Jump to content

[Resolved] Slow handoff(?)


Recommended Posts

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

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

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.

Edited by Firefly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...