Sender: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@DEARN> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
"Christian J. Reichetzeder" <REICHETZ@AWIIMC11> |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Feb 89 15:58:58 SET |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Tue, 7 Feb 89 14:08:12 GMT from <ERIC@LEPICS> |
Reply-To: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@DEARN> |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Although this plan sounds reasonable on first hearing (given the present
"environmental" conditions) it's not a workable solution.
Optimistic view:
Let's assume LISTSERV/LISTEARN/LISTwhatever turns into something like MTAs
(mail transfer agents) - so let's call them LDAs (list distribution agents).
Obviously there has to be some standard (RFC4000-RFC4999) which is supported
by all LDAs. This may seem unnecessary work but on the other hand it will
enable non-VM sites to implement LDAs and connect them as peers to existing
VM-LDAs. Sure this will take some time and meanwhile the net will be split in
to parts in terms of LDAs.
Less optimistic view:
A similar scenario but only a minimum standard can be worked out. EARN and
BITNET/NetNorth agree on the use of special RFC822 tags and everything works
more or less like the ARPA redistribution lists (with similar restrictions).
Pessimistic view:
NJE networks are already outdated. So why not start right now? With mailers
already supporting various flavors of routing and TCP/IP and all kinds of
gateways the RSCS-based network is an anachronism.
*-*
With the proposed plan a (partial) functional split of the networks seems
unavoidable - a situation I dislike. I also don't know if BITNET/NetNorth want
to make themselves headaches over something which is not a real problem. I.e.
I don't know if EARN made an official request to talk about the efficiency,
functionality and usefulness of LISTSERV (or an equivalent tool).
Christian
P.S.: this is not a final statement but meant to further stir up the
discussion.
|
|
|