On Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:20:31 EDT, Duane Weaver <WEAVER@OHSTVMA> wrote:
>The list owner contacted me for assistance.  The current peer
>structure is UKCC---UTARLVM1----TEMPLEVM
>I think the peer structure should be UTARLVM1--TEMPLEVM--UKCC.
>What should it be?
 
If I enter 'TELL LISTSERV AT node SHOW PATH node1 node', I find that:
    UKCC     is connected to UGA,
    UTARLVM1 is connected to RICEVM1,
    TEMPLEVM is connected to PUNFSV2,
and that UGA and RICEVM1 and PUNFSV2 are inter-connected,
i.e., they form the corners of a triangle,
      and one peer is connected to each corner.
 
Thus, in this case, each of the three "peers" is **exactly**
the same number of BITNET hops from each other peer.
 
So, the two stated paths are equally "efficient",
if you ignore the different link-speeds and average-BITNET-queues at each link.
 
>The list owner is concerned about the Warning messages in the mail
>header records.  See the two examples below.   I suspect that the
>problem is at the peer sites in how their RSCS or MAILER is setup.
 
I suspect that the list-definitions don't **correctly** list
the ID/node of the "peer" hosts.  The list is defined as "REVIEW=OWNER",
so I can't verify this, but I suspect that the ID [log in to unmask]
is listed as a subscriber, instead of [log in to unmask]
>---------------------------Original message---------------------------------
>Sender:       The India Interest Group            <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To:     The India Interest Group            <[log in to unmask]>
>Comments:     Warning -- original Sender:  tag was [log in to unmask]
>X-To:         Multiple recipients of list INDIA-D <[log in to unmask]>