Ok.  Being adjacent to WISCVM and planning to get FRECP11-LISTSERV
running REAL SOON NOW I have a few thoughts on the ARPAlist redistributions.
 
   1.     Has anyone looked at the traffic the lists impose on the gateway?
       I would expect that a small number of the lists (say 10%) impose
       the bulk of the traffic (maybe 90%) - the 90/10 rule.
          IF a small number of lists are involved perhaps we should
       concentrate on those by providing normal LISTSERV lists on BITNET
       for them.
   2.     Some of the lists are available via Netnews.  For those who
       asked, Netnews is a distribution system available on BNEnet which
       forwards items in packets and also has a user interface to allow
       customizing what items a person wants to see.  Unlike mail it stores
       ONE copy of the item on the local system which all users can share.
       (This is USENET on UNIX systems).
          As I understand it, both Penn State and Princeton have developed
       servers and user software to handle netnews on CMS.  A controlled
       network of netnews sites, where items are sent from one site to the
       next (only one copy usually goes down the same link) could certainly
       cut down on some of the traffic.
          Again, it would help to look at the pattern of the items (source
       and destination) to see what amount of effort would be required for
       what gain  (eg. if a school had 100 people on SF-Lovers then netnews
       might save 99 items).
   3.     I think we should be very careful about deciding what OTHER sites
       should be doing.  Some of the network hubs have taken on a very large
       burden on our behalf.  Perhaps some of us who are not topologically
       situated to be transmission hubs can help in other ways - for instance
       by running a major LISTSERV node.  The transmission may not be
       optimum but the load is spread around a bit.
   4.     I am a bit concerned that if WISCVM does limit the number of
       RCPT lines to 10, users who are using the multiple entries will just
       divide the mail up into additional files so no one exceeds 10 (or
       so there is 1 addressee per envelope even!).  The cure could be worse
       than the disease.
   5.     Is the WISCVM - Arpanet gateway being overworked?  What are the
       options?  I do not know all the politics or financing arrangements.
       But I suspect that is a lot of work with little or no money to
       work on it.  If it is being maintained by volunteers who are
       students, what happens when they leave?  Are we expecting too much
       for what we are paying?   :-)
   6.     What are the ramifications of DISTRIBUTing FILES instead of
       sending MAIL?  Will this have an effect on all the user agents out
       there?  I hate to cause more problems with non-standard files, etc.
       (That may not be a problem - just my lack of understanding).
 
                    Marty Hoag