> because it looks like you're covered in what you claim Melvin keeps > saying over and over and over again. Since you do not have a registered > gateway, you are routed through INTERBIT. By definition, INTERBIT is a Since the message this is in response to was sent directly to Melvin Klassen, with whom I've had many direct exchanges of increasing anger levels, and NOT to the list, I did not perhaps make my point clear. (I started not to respond to Melvin at all and wish now that I had not responded. I can assure you that I will never again send direct e-mail to him under any circumstances.) I am aware of the existence of bitnet-internet gateways, of course. I'm also aware that sites can register equivalent bitnet-internet addresses with bitnic. (There's no way I could not be aware of that since Melvin, in his exclamation-point-filled, holier-than-thou style has reminded me of it at least 500 times, with copies to various systems people here whose addresses he has found.) Here's my point, though. One reason I'm very glad that our bitnet address is not registered with bitnic is that I do NOT want any important mail coming to that address. It is my understanding that if the equivalent addresses were registered, some of my mail would be diverted to my bitnet address against my will. That means that I might not see it for two weeks. (Yes, I know it's not bitnet's fault that our link is down about 75% of the time. We've discussed that before. I have nothing to do with computer operations here. I'm an ordinary faculty user and am looking at things from the ordinary user's point of view -- which is that using bitnet means getting mail days or weeks late in some cases.) When I said (in the mail that I did not send to LSTOWN-L) that bitnet had nothing to do with the recent problem, I meant that I was not using a bitnet address and would not use a bitnet address. If mail to [log in to unmask] msstate.edu suddenly started being automatically changed to [log in to unmask] bitnet because of something going on somewhere else, I would probably stop using this system and retreat to the safety of a guest account I have at cs.msstate.edu -- which has no bitnet software and thus can't be affected by any such address-changing by machines at other places. Let's assume that I had been using [log in to unmask] Thursday when I reported these problems. (I do use that address when this system is down and have that address listed as listowner for both of the lists I run at UGA.) If there is no bitnet software on that machine, how could I be told that the fault was with the failure of msstate.edu to list its bitnet address with bitnic? > would be grateful if you would send Michael Gettes a copy of one of the > messages which took 12-15h to reach you so he can investigate. I don't think I saved any of them. > That was another matter entirely. Harold wanted INTERBIT mail to be > routed through his SMTP and had inadvertently caused it to go through > another route. That was a problem in the sense that UGA wasn't doing what I readily admit that I am a non-techy who knows nothing about technical matters. I do know that there was jubilation on WORDS-L yesterday, when several people noticed that their list mail had started coming from UGA again instead of from PUCC and that it was arriving promptly. --Natalie ([log in to unmask]) P.S. Non-techy though I am, I do know how to fake mail and know that if it's to a list, the subscribers will find no clue of where it really came from. I've done that from time to time with funny addresses like [log in to unmask] sky. I do not, however, fake real names and addresses. As I said yesterday, I believe that those who do should be kicked off of the nets.