|
Sender: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@CEARN> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
"Christian J. Reichetzeder" <REICHETZ@AWIIMC11> |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Nov 89 16:02:22 SET |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Mon, 27 Nov 89 15:03:34 EDT from <AUROUX@FRORS12> |
Reply-To: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@CEARN> |
On Mon, 27 Nov 89 15:03:34 EDT Alain Auroux said:
>>3) An EARN site running as backbone server must run LISTEARN. ..............
>
>This is the right interpretation.
Well, from ongoing discussions on other lists I can say that this realization
is not wide spread. E.g. " .. it's not correct that EARN doesn't want you to
run LISTSERV by Eric Thomas. It's only a recommendation that THE INTERNATIONAL
EARN-NODES ... should run the one supported by Turgut. This recommendation has
been made with the background that EARN PAYS ONE PERSON (Turgut) EXTRA FOR
THAT PURPOSE." (uppercase by me).
> (.. sanctions ..) It might be (but this is just a personal guess) removing
>from the LISTEARN backbone.
>The reason for the NOG to propose the Listserver directive and for the BoD to
>accept it is the following:
> 2. Propose the listserver directive, to make sure that at least EARN
> listserver backbone sites run the same version of listserver, to avoid
> problems of incompatibility between backbone servers.
As Eric pointed out this is a matter of where you get the border - and the
load. There are two points worth mentioning:
1) The directive - in the given form and forgetting all misinterpretations -
will not establish a LISTEARN only backbone within EARN. EARN may face the
situation that the LISTSERV (I'm referring to the BITNET/NetNorth version)
backbone still extends into EARN - a scenario EARN possibly doesn't want to
come true. That's what I meant with hidden meaning.
2) If EARN fails to have LISTGATE working before the backbones become
incompatible the load is put on the CUNY-MOP link. You will of course have
severe problems in the other direction in any case.
I volunteered for running both versions and I had word from at least one other
postmaster that he'd do the same (don't know if this is still true) for
developement and testing purposes. It's not distrust in Turgut that I (and 9
other sites) opted for 1.6, I explained in my previous letter.
>
>In addition, I remind you that you are commenting on a private mail sent
>by error to a list, thanks to the 'REPLY' command. I personally would feel
>a bit uneasy to do that |
For the sake of the argument I could start an inquiry how many of the readers
know that it was sent by mistake (and how many know that the introduction of
Turgut's 'dirty talk'-letter was referring to that). Since this is drawn into
the eyes of the public I will also defend myself here: I received Turgut's
second letter BEFORE the mistakenly sent reply (thanks to the working of the
network) and from the text I got NO IDEA that the letter replying to Alain was
meant.
Again I apologize for not seeing that but I don't feel uneasy and I would
suggest that the guilt is evenly divided among me counted with a weight of
two, the REPLY's working, the network's working, the one who sent with the
mis-pointing Reply-To: tag and the one who did the reply without noticing
where it is going to.
Oh well, sometimes I behave like a child - learning that I get more response
when crying out, I do it instead of keeping cool and controlled. But I neither
want to flame particular persons nor is it my intention to make revolution
against EARN committees.
I just don't understand why a thing running smoothly for years suddenly is
causing a lot of headaches for a lot of people. And I'm still not convinced
that the current course of actions is the right one. But maybe I'm fighting
windmills ...
>
>You lost| I took just a week-end.
Indeed !!! :-) .. and I don't count the weekend so it's less than one day.
>Alain Auroux
Christian
|
|
|