On Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:48:42 CDT Natalie Maynor said:
>I hope nobody minds my combining two postings in this reply.  I've been
>following the discussion with interest but have had nothing to add until
>now.  I have a question in reply to one of Eric's postings and a comment
>in reply to another posting.
>
>> FTP is great if  you are looking for an excuse to  twiddle your thumbs 15
>> minutes at work while reading the  paper.
>
>What does this mean?  I don't understand what ftp has to do with thumb-
>twiddling.
 
 I believe that Eric was pointing out that you can't just issue one
 command requesting a file, as in "tell listserv at jhuvm get foo foo",
 and then forgetting about it.  Instead, FTP requires that you essentially
 establish an interactive session with the other system and actively
 participate in retrieving the files.  With LISTSERV, the request is sent
 (can be a mail message, seeing as you get better response from e-mail),
 and the remote system does the sending asynchronously, without further
 input from the user.
 
>> and the TELL features that make listownership a breeze instead of a
>> bear!
>
>I'm listowner for two lists on a remote site since our system can't run
>LISTSERV.  I have my choice of bitnet or internet in communicating with
>the site that runs my lists.  I find using internet mail quicker and
>easier than using bitnet interactive commands:  the internet mail gets
>there faster; I don't have to worry about whether the link is up; the
>response arrives as mail rather than hopping onto my screen in a disruptive
>way.
 
 I seem to remember discussing this particular aspect of your system's
 performance before.  And while I believe that you are seeing better
 response from e-mail, I don't believe that it's useful to generalize
 your experience to other Bitnet sites.  It's certainly not my experience,
 and if memory serves, part of your problem turned out to be an operations
 staff that wouldn't detect Bitnet link failures until they'd been down
 for long periods.  And ironically, they did detect and correct Internet
 service disruptions quite quickly.  My apologies if my recollection is
 incorrent.
 
> ...                                                  But my point is that
>a listowner has no need of bitnet (except in the sense that somebody has
>to be running LISTSERV somewhere if LISTSERV lists are going to exist).
>If our site drops bitnet, my life as a listowner will not be affected
>at all.
 
 Unless the site that's hosting your list drops off Bitnet, in which case
 you won't have a list anymore, unless some other Bitnet site adopts it.
 And like I said, some of us are quite fond of messages, and have Bitnet
 links that stay up constantly.
 
>   --Natalie ([log in to unmask])
 
 -jj