|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:56:28 +0200 |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:37:05 -0400 from LISTSERV list
owners' forum < [log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:37:05 -0400 Mike Holloway <[log in to unmask]> said:
>VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM has been having problems delivering to one address,
>DHHS.GOV, from which a user is trying to subscribe. VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM is
>reporting that "Domain "OSASPE.DHHS.GOV" doesn't exist" despite the
>admin there insisting that the system has not been down and that e-mail
>to and from other sites has not been a problem.
VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM delivers between 1,500,000 and 2,225,000 messages per
business day. When something is wrong with this machine, we find out VERY
QUICKLY because the phone rings seconds after we drop it back. There are
many domains with flaky DNS servers that our servers attempt to deliver
to and for which they get this error. In the present case, there IS a
definite problem with the DHHS.GOV domain, specifically with the
HHS-CUSTOS.dhhs.gov name server, which claims that OSASPE.DHHS.GOV does
not exist.
>I've often been frustrated by the lack of control over how my list is
>distributed when problems occur. I can't even diagnose the problem most
>of the time since I have no idea how the messages are being distributed
>in the LISTSERV system.
The reason DHHS.GOV is routed through our machines is that the site
hosting your list is taking advantage of L-Soft's offer to deliver all
the LISTSERV mail of existing BITNET VM sites that do not have the
necessary horsepower to deliver it locally. We deliver this mail for
FREE, even when the beneficiary is not a customer and doesn't contribute
a cent to our bottom line (as is the case with your list). We did this
because the BITNET core was about to explode, sites were dropping from
INTERBIT every month, and we had the technology to solve this problem
elegantly and wanted to demonstrate to the many skeptics that this
technology actually works and is not just an electronic glossy. I am not
complaining or blaming anyone, we've made this decision a long time ago
and we're standing by it, but this *is* costing us real money (call the
ISP of your choice and ask how much they charge for 10Mbps). So, it would
be nice if the beneficiaries did not keep flaming us in public every time
they experience a delivery problem that we can't do anything about,
especially without first checking if the site in question doesn't maybe
have a problem after all.
Eric
|
|
|