> 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.