No, this is NOT the wrong list...  Imagine a mod to RSCS that allows you
to specify not one, but MANY destinations (perhaps multiple tags) for a
spool file.  When RSCS stores and forwards this file, it will fork that
file over the various links it should go, disposing of it when it is
successful sending it over the last link.  Each outgoing copy will only
including the necessary destination addresses (tags).  This feature would
help the network a lot.
 
Now if IBM created this feature and supported it, would you say you have
lost control over your node and its software?
 
Since IBM does not offer this, if it is to be done it will have to be done
as an independant project by someone.  Since people generally like to avoid
modifying IBM code, it might be better done by having a subnetwork of servers.
 
Does it sound familiar now?  Does this mean you have any more or less control?
 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
You should be allowed to have control of what servers your server will be
allowed to talk to, and what nodes your server will service for incoming
and outgoing files.  If everyone ran this server (meaning we need MVS, VMS,
UNIX, etc, versions) then you only need to service your own node, and talk
to servers in adjacent nodes.  Since this ideal cannot be immediately met,
at least the facility exists to service other nodes, and talk to servers
more than one link away.
 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
My next question is why WISCVM cannot run one of these servers (what is it
called?  LISTSERV or something like that?) on their own node so the traffic
that flows from WISCVM to CUNYVM will be reduced.  It seems to me if they
do this, they will be regaining control that has already been lost, unless
they happen to fall into the N.I.H. syndrome.
 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+