----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Kevin Williams" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "LISTSERV give-and-take forum" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Performance question


> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:23:21 CST, Kevin Williams <[log in to unmask]>  said:
>
> > Received: from listserv ([131.225.9.3]) by FNAL.FNAL.GOV (PMDF V5.2-32
> > #36665)
> >  with ESMTP id <[log in to unmask]> for
> >  [log in to unmask] (ORCPT rfc822;[log in to unmask]); Thu,
> >  24 Feb 2000 15:08:23 -0600 CDT
>                ********
> > Received: from LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV by LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
> >  (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d)
> >  with spool id 0265 for [log in to unmask]; Thu,
> >  24 Feb 2000 15:07:04 -0600
>                ********
>
> Yep, There's your time warp.   Oddly enough, I don't see a intervening
line
> where Listserv hands it to LSMTP, which may or may not tell you anything.
> I'd *really* expect to see a line between these two, where LSMTP received
> it from Listserv.  Is Listserv somehow handing it directly to your PMDF
> box, bypassing LSMTP.
>
> Just as a stupid question, do you run NTP or other time syncronization
software
> on the machines, so we know we're looking at a *real* 1:19 delay and not
just
> two machines with a 1:19 difference in clocks?
>
>
> --
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Operating Systems Analyst
> Virginia Tech

Yes, we run the Timeserv service on all of our servers, synchronized to the
router for the subnet.

I, too, wondered why there wasn't a reference to LSMTP in the headers.

There is something odd shown in the LSMTP control program, though.  It shows
that it has received 98 messages and sent 99 messages, but the figures for
the columns "rate", "avg", and "topavg" are all 0.00.  I don't know what
that implies.