Gentlemen, this is in reply to both messages sent recently by Mr. Alex Dupuy and Mr. Eric Thomas; I would like to clarify a few things and give credit were necessary. ET> general, then let's talk bandwidth/resources, and the conclusion is that ET> a usenet group with only 10k subscribers is a waste of resources and When referring to "conclusions" like this, it would be helpful to provide references to studies that support such a claim. ET> bandwidth due to the tremendous amount of hosts which will get ET> information they are not interested in, batched or not batched. Keep in mind that each site CHOOSES which news groups to carry and which not to, so such generalizations COULD be, but not necessarily ARE true. AD> I'm sorry if the existence of a different (and somewhat incompatible) AD> implementation of LISTSERV bothers you. ET> You got it wrong. I have no problem with the existence of 200 unix list ET> managers, as long as they don't call themselves 'unix listserv version ET> x.y' and don't claim in their documentation to be a 'port of the bitnet ET> listserver'. In my next version of whatever is that I am doing, I specifically mention: **** LISTSERV is a system that was originally designed by Eric Thomas for BITNET nodes and extensive help on that system is available from your favorite BITNET node (uga.cc.uga.edu for example; send email to [log in to unmask] for more information). This version is a bitnet- flavored UNIX implementation (not a port of the original LISTSERV), written (and still developed) by Tasos Kotsikonas and a group of current users. No connection exists between the two implementations, except that the latter was influenced by the the former, and lots of requests are similar. **** [comments on the truthfulness of the above are welcome]. Now, what each list manager calls himself/herself has no relevance to the discussion. ET> How do you think I feel when users start reporting bugs they ET> found on these servers to *me*, and then insulting me for having made I would kindly ask you to have them contact me. So far NO ONE HAS INSULTED ME ABOUT ANYTHING!!!! And there have been a lot of bug reports. ET> Then how come people on the Internet aren't asking for the 3500 existing ET> BITNET lists to be split in this fashion for their convenience? Try Mr. Dupuy just did. Others may follow. 3 ex-BITNET nodes have switched to whatever is that I have provided people with, one of them I think being NASA. AD> I believe that both implementations of LISTSERV support mail ET> This is exactly the kind of statement that I object to. The software you ET> are using is NOT an implementation of LISTSERV. It isn't compatible, it I suspect Mr. Dupuy refers to the CONCEPT and the IDEA of listserv. ET> it cannot connect to LISTSERV as a peer, it just does about the same sort of Let me just say that 2 sites have successfully peered their Internet lists (using we all know what) with BITNET ones; unfortunately, I do not have the specifics and cannot say that it works both ways, so Mr. Thomas may have a point, so some clarifications are invited as to why we cannot connect as a peer. Sincerely, Tasos