1997-10-23 - Re: ADMIN: lost messages (fwd)

Header Data

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
To: ravage@ssz.com
Message Hash: d571322bad38a3589da52db869ced20f3b03855ee44b90ef77b5d201bd8c4ddf
Message ID: <199710231721.NAA04296@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
Reply To: <199710231312.IAA17874@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-23 17:30:48 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:30:48 +0800

Raw message

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:30:48 +0800
To: ravage@ssz.com
Subject: Re: ADMIN: lost messages (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199710231312.IAA17874@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199710231721.NAA04296@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Jim Choate writes:

> Yes, there are occassional breakdowns in the communications between the
> list remailers. The reason that there are several of them is if one goes
> down for more than a few minutes the whole lists doesn't go down which would
> occur if we were still on a single remailer.

I understand this rationale.  But that doesn't explain what's 
happening to the missing messages.  Is there a flaw in the 
distributor/reflector duplicate-filtering algorithms?  Or is this
a problem of certain messages being introduced into a node whose
product does not get propagated to all subscribers of all the other
nodes?  Or are you saying that if ssz (say) goes down for a few
minutes it forgets about any mail it has queued up for its
counterparts at cyberpass and algebra (et al.)?

-- Jeff