Veeery interesting.  Just now I received a bounce from the
cunyvm.cun.edu list exploder (where the majority of people receive
their FML issues) of the *original* issue 696 sent on Jan 13th.  The
bounce was, (very funny Bill ;-), because the issue was a duplicate -
I had resent it Jan 14th (or possibly 15th).
 
I sent mail to the other people in the "batch" that included the
exploder, and got someone saying that they did get their article
at the right time.
 
For those RFC822/mailer problem fans, here is the interesting
part:
 
    Received: from CUNYVM (NJE origin SMTP@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail
 V1.1d/1
    .7f) with BSMTP id 7777; Tue, 18 Jan 1994 16:47:13 -0500
    Received: from relay1.UU.NET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
       Tue, 18 Jan 94 16:47:03 EST
    Received: from mail.uunet.ca (via uunet.ca) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
            (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02219;
            Thu, 13 Jan 94 18:49:08 -0500
    Received: from ecicrl by mail.uunet.ca with UUCP id <58733(3)>; Thu, 13 Jan
 1994
     18:48:17 -0500
    Received: by ferret.ocunix.on.ca (smail2.5)
        id AA11863; 13 Jan 94 05:02:20 EST (Thu)
 
You read this from the bottom up.  I sent it on 05:02 on Jan 13.
Arrived at my access provider (uunet.ca, Toronto) at 18:48 (doesn't
usually take *that* long - usually half an hour or so) on the 13th, hit
UUNET (Arlington West Virginia) at 18:49 on the 13th, and thereupon it
sat for 5 whole days before getting to CUNY.
 
Strange thing is that I usually get warnings back from uunet if it hasn't
been able to get through for 3 days.
 
It almost looks like uunet lost a spool drive, or a whole system, and took
5 days to restore it back to normalcy.  Alternately, their mailer got 5
days behind.  Which is hard to believe.
 
Bill, you may wish to try searching for incoming requests from relay1.uu.net
on cunyvm's logs between the 13th and 18th, and see if they were completely
out of touch or not.
 
[Posted in FML issue 0702]