Does anyone, including Jim of course, know why his messages appear here
late? They appear in the list (which is chronologically arranged) in the
correct place, but they always appear between 12 and 48 hours after the
time and date given. The annoyance is that when the group is busy they
are off the bottom of my screen, so when I think I've read everything it
says there's one or two messages remaining unread, so I have to scroll
down to find them. There is also the annoyance of the discontinuity of
intercourse, if I can put it like that.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Does anyone, including Jim of course, know why his messages appear here
late? They appear in the list (which is chronologically arranged) in the
correct place, but they always appear between 12 and 48 hours after the
time and date given. The annoyance is that when the group is busy they
are off the bottom of my screen, so when I think I've read everything it
says there's one or two messages remaining unread, so I have to scroll
down to find them. There is also the annoyance of the discontinuity of
intercourse, if I can put it like that.

He's using a digital line.

--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Bill Wright wrote:
Does anyone, including Jim of course, know why his messages appear here
late? They appear in the list (which is chronologically arranged) in the
correct place, but they always appear between 12 and 48 hours after the
time and date given. The annoyance is that when the group is busy they
are off the bottom of my screen, so when I think I've read everything it
says there's one or two messages remaining unread, so I have to scroll
down to find them. There is also the annoyance of the discontinuity of
intercourse, if I can put it like that.

I suspect they are date stamped with the time of composition, rather than when
they're actually uploaded to his Usenet provider, and/or propagated to
everyone else's ?

Used to get this more often when most folk were on dial up, but I can't
believe Jim is sill on dial up ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Mark Carver wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
Does anyone, including Jim of course, know why his messages appear
here late? They appear in the list (which is chronologically arranged)
in the correct place, but they always appear between 12 and 48 hours
after the time and date given. The annoyance is that when the group is
busy they are off the bottom of my screen, so when I think I've read
everything it says there's one or two messages remaining unread, so I
have to scroll down to find them. There is also the annoyance of the
discontinuity of intercourse, if I can put it like that.

I suspect they are date stamped with the time of composition, rather
than when they're actually uploaded to his Usenet provider, and/or
propagated to everyone else's ?

Used to get this more often when most folk were on dial up, but I can't
believe Jim is sill on dial up ?

Whatever it is it's unique to his posts on this group, as received here.
Is anyone else getting this or is it just me? I was wondering if
Thunderbird was doing it at this end.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

Whatever it is it's unique to his posts on this group, as received here.
Is anyone else getting this or is it just me? I was wondering if
Thunderbird was doing it at this end.

No. A look at his message headers shows that the date attached to his
messages is usually hours earlier than the actual posting date as noted by
the news-server (i.e. the "NNTP-Posting-Date:" header). The headers also
show that he's using the "RISC-OS" operating system as used on the
venerable Acorn Archimedes, so I'd guess that he's writing the messages
and "posting" them to an internal spool on his machine, and then hours
later he connects to the Internet and the messages are sent in bulk.

Dave Farrance wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Whatever it is it's unique to his posts on this group, as received here.
Is anyone else getting this or is it just me? I was wondering if
Thunderbird was doing it at this end.

No. A look at his message headers shows that the date attached to his
messages is usually hours earlier than the actual posting date as noted by
the news-server (i.e. the "NNTP-Posting-Date:" header). The headers also
show that he's using the "RISC-OS" operating system as used on the
venerable Acorn Archimedes, so I'd guess that he's writing the messages
and "posting" them to an internal spool on his machine, and then hours
later he connects to the Internet and the messages are sent in bulk.

Oh I see. That would explain it then. Sounds like old Pembers? Remember
him anyone?

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright writes:
Mark Carver wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
Does anyone, including Jim of course, know why his messages
appear here late? They appear in the list (which is
chronologically arranged) in the correct place, but they always
appear between 12 and 48 hours after the time and date given.
The annoyance is that when the group is busy they are off the
bottom of my screen, so when I think I've read everything it
says there's one or two messages remaining unread, so I have
to scroll down to find them. There is also the annoyance of the
discontinuity of intercourse, if I can put it like that.
I suspect they are date stamped with the time of composition,
rather than when they're actually uploaded to his Usenet
provider, and/or propagated to everyone else's ?
Used to get this more often when most folk were on dial up, but
I can't believe Jim is sill on dial up ?

Whatever it is it's unique to his posts on this group, as received
here. Is anyone else getting this or is it just me? I was wondering if
Thunderbird was doing it at this end.

Bill

Here are some header lines from one of his messages:

NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:39:00 -0600
From: Jim Lesurf
Subject: TOT: Can morale affect a cold in the nose?
Newsgroups: uk.tech.digital-tv
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:41:15 +0000 (GMT)

The Date header shows when he finished composing his post, and the
NNTP-Posting-Date header shows when the news server that he used
received it. The -0600 indicates that it's in a time zone 6 hours behind
GMT, ie somewhere in the us. So we have to add 6 hours to get the time
in GMT, in this case 9:39. So he composed the post late Wednesday
afternoon, but didn't post it till this (Thursday) morning, some 16
hours later.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

On Thursday, January 5th, 2012, at 20:11:04h +0000, Dave Farrance wrote:

and then hour later he connects to the Internet and
the messages are sent in bulk.

Or that the process which sends out the postings to the
new server only runs (as a batch job) every 6h or 12h or whatever.

Originally the time delay in batch posting in Usenet served
the useful purpose of allowing tempers to cool before the
next flamefest commenced.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:02:26 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thursday, January 5th, 2012, at 20:11:04h +0000, Dave Farrance wrote:

and then hour later he connects to the Internet and
the messages are sent in bulk.

Or that the process which sends out the postings to the
new server only runs (as a batch job) every 6h or 12h or whatever.

Originally the time delay in batch posting in Usenet served
the useful purpose of allowing tempers to cool before the
next flamefest commenced.

Judging by the headers in Jim's posts he uses Giganews.

Does anyone else here use that news service?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Peter Duncanson wrote:

Judging by the headers in Jim's posts he uses Giganews.
Does anyone else here use that news service?

Indirectly (Plusnet's news server is outsourced to them) I'd never
noticed a particular lag on Jim's posts, but I'll look out for it ...