On Tue, 29 May 90 23:20:44 O Eric Thomas said:
>I'm afraid I  don't understand the question exactly. If  you have a local
>redistribution for local staff, you  probably don't want anybody (outside
>from the local staff, which I assume  will know about it) to subscribe to
>it, and it should therefore not be known to the rest of the world.
 
 I had a hard time writing that letter, I'm not surprised that it wasn't
 all that clear...  I've tried to simplify my questions below.
 
> ...   A list
>which isn't peered  doesn't provide the same service as  the master list,
>and therefore  it is  absolutely reasonable  not to  forward subscription
>requests for that  list to a redistribution list -  again, another reason
>for not being globally known. I cannot think of any reason for wanting to
>be globally known; did I miss something? :-)
 
 Yes and no. :-)  You answered one question I had.  Which was "is there
 any reason that a truley local list shouldn't be concealed?".  You said
 "no", which is what I suspected.  On the other hand, I still have two
 other questions.  If there are servers which host a list, but they are
 not peered, and both lists are "global", what problems can arise?  Also,
 if two servers define a list with the same List-Id, again not peered,
 and both "global", what problems can that cause?  Both of these things
 are currently happening with the NIH sub-lists.  I wasn't sure if it
 was simply confusing, or (possibly?) problematic.
 
 Here's the specifics:
 
 1 -- two non-peered "global" lists on two different servers:
 NIHGUIDE         NIHGUIDE@UMAB     NIH Listing of Available Grants and
                                    Contracts
                  NIHGUIDE@UWAVM    NIH Guide U of Washington Distribution
 
 2 -- two non-peered "global" lists witht the same List-Id:
 'NIH-GUIDE'      NIHGUIDE@TCSVM    NIH Guide List (TCSVM)
                  NIHGGC-L@UBVM     NIH Grants and Contracts Distribution List
 
 
 I wasn't suggesting that Listserv should handle things differently.
 I was just pointing out that if many non-peered lists are created, then
 Listserv can't possibly distribute the subscriptions effectively, since
 they appear to be independent lists.  That too is happening with the NIH
 sub-lists.  Not all that much, since most subscribers on the re-distrib
 lists seem to be local.  But it still peeked my curiosity.
 
>  Eric
 
 Sorry the first message was so jumbled!
 -jj