Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 13 May 1994 19:48:45 CST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 9 May 1994 13:06:56 -0700, David Alix <[log in to unmask]> said:
>Our system will be leaving Bitnet this summer, and I was going to use the
>:newnode tag to change our user's addresses in listservers. I'm just not
>certain which address to use.
>Our Internet name is "ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu", but the From: line from our users
>to Bitnet listservers will probably be something like
>"[log in to unmask]".
What makes you think so?
If that's truly the case, then you're probably outta luck. I don't
think :newnode can be coerced into helping you in that situation.
However, most BITNET gateways are smart enough not to %-hack an address
that's already fully qualified. Have you tested yours to be certain
one way or the other? You might be worrying about a non-issue.
> Will listservers be able to
>match that From line to the user's "[log in to unmask]" subscription
>address?
No.
> If not, will they not be able to unsubscribe without human
>intervention, or post to private lists?
No. And no.
> MIght it then be better to use
>the gatewayed address in the :newnode tag (or is that even possible)?
As I understand how the :newnode tag is used, that won't work.
>Can anyone who has made this move make any suggestions on easing the
>transition for our users?
Sorry, I have no personal experience in this area. I'm not sure what
to tell you.
> Thanks for your help.
Good luck.
Bill
>David Alix
|
|
|