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]