Re: SPF problems too

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:27:34 +1300
Mark Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> > example from today:
> > Russel Post at mailhost.linux.org.au: 15:46:39 +1100 (AEDT)
> > ac replied: 16:12:21 +1100 (AEDT)
> > Stephen Rothwell replied: 16:01:40 +1100 (AEDT)
> > Julian replied 17:16:45 +1100 (AEDT)
> > But the actual list receive order is:
> > Russel
> > Stephen
> > Russel
> > Julian
> > ac 1st email of (16:12) --> to list after 6pm
> > ac 2nd email of (16:22) --> this email received at 6:12 pm
> Did you in-fact check the headers of the emails that were delayed as
> I suggested?

the times above are from the headers...

> Steve's last email suggests you're far from moderated. Again, look
> for a technical issue - not a malicious one.
> 
have not received/seen any email from Steve? I guess it still has to
come from list...

regarding malice? who said anything about malice? :)

if posts are moderated then they are moderated - this means that 
other posts, made after your post, may/will be sent to list before
your post... this is "normal" for moderated lists... - no malice -
normal... - but as this is not said anywhere, it seems kinda odd
now though.. , so i guess now there is something to know :)

your further reply below starts from your listserv receipt after 6pm
so, 16H22 was received by you, after 6pm - whereas other senders
that sent after 16:22, was distributed by listserv before 6pm

so, moderated list or timezone bug?

First and obvious question: Is the list/me moderated?

If not, then to look for the technical reason why the factual is
happening :)

> Your email of 16.12 displays header Date: line as follows:
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:12:21 +0200 (Why are you set to UTC +2 ?)
> It was received by my MTA, through my anti-spam service provider, at
> 15 Jan 2016 18:12:45 +1300 (NZDT) - So it took 24 seconds +/- clock 
> variance between your machine and my MTA.
> Your follow-up email of 16.22 shows Date: line of Date: Fri, 15 Jan
> 2016 07:22:36 +0200 and was received by my MTA at Fri, 15 Jan 2016
> 18:22:58 +1300 (NZDT) - 22 seconds throughput time.
> The only copy I got, was through the listserv.
> 
> Again, don't make assumptions. You could (for example) review the web 
> archive to see if your message has hit the list proper or not, if you 
> want to see what others might see in terms of
> subscription-vs-delivery. Or you could subscribe an additional
> third-party email address as a sanity check.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> PS: Following the threads here the spawned from my initial PSA has
> been enlightening, both in terms of the cloo level's demonstrated by
> many in the community - and also in some of the misunderstandings
> about some of this stuff. LCA talk material, maybe? :) It sounds like
> the LA backend-horsepower are working pretty hard to find new hosting
> for services pretty quickly, maybe in the aftermath a report to LCA
> would help some participants understand exactly how much volunteer
> effort goes in to keeping LA ticking...
> 
indeed...