June Genis <GA.JRG@STANFORD>
Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:09:01 PST
|
REPLY TO 01/27/89 13:13 FROM [log in to unmask] "Revised LISTSERV forum":
Re: DIST2 and MAILER
>June, I really don't see why DIST2 should mean more files than DIST1.
>Nothing was changed in the behaviour of LISTSERV regarding what you
>mention. LISTSERV cannot send just one file to its mailer and let it
>handle the distribution because each file has a different header.
>
> Eric
Eric,
I don't understand the why either but here'e what seems to be
happening. Lets say that the XYZ list distributed from MARIST has
four STANFORD subscribers. Before DIST2 LISTSERV apparently passed
all four names off to the MARIST mailer which then sent one
transmission to the MAILER at STANFORD. Now, MARIST sends one
transmission to BYUADMIN for all STANFORD and any other downstream
nodes. Fine so far. I understand that using the LISTSERV backbone
as far as it extends can rduce the total network load.
What I don't understand is why when BYUADMIN determines that there
is no closer LISTSERV machine to us than itself and that it must
therefore pass of the transmission as regular mail, that it doesn't
do so in the same way that MASTIST would have done in the old days,
namely by passing all forur names to MAILER thus allowing them to be
transmitted by a single BSMTP transmission from MAILER@BYUADMIN to
[log in to unmask] Instead, it is causing four separate pieces of
mail to be generated at that point, one for each subscriber. Thus,
instead of one transmission from MARIST, we are now getting four
from BYUADMIN. Total network load may be down but our spool
consumption is up.
It seems like all that's necessary to have the best of both worlds
is to have the end (from the recipients point of view) LISTSERV node
made better use of MAILER.
/June
To: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|