REPLY TO 01/27/89 13:13 FROM [log in to unmask] "Revised LISTSERV forum":
Re: DIST2 and MAILER
 
>June, I  really don't see  why DIST2 should  mean more files  than DIST1.
>Nothing  was changed  in the  behaviour  of LISTSERV  regarding what  you
>mention. LISTSERV  cannot send  just one  file to its  mailer and  let it
>handle the distribution because each file has a different header.
>
>  Eric
 
Eric,
 
I don't understand the why either but here'e what seems to be
happening.  Lets say that the XYZ list distributed from MARIST has
four STANFORD subscribers.  Before DIST2 LISTSERV apparently passed
all four names off to the MARIST mailer which then sent one
transmission to the MAILER at STANFORD.  Now, MARIST sends one
transmission to BYUADMIN for all STANFORD and any other downstream
nodes.  Fine so far.  I understand that using the LISTSERV backbone
as far as it extends can rduce the total network load.
 
What I don't understand is why when BYUADMIN determines that there
is no closer LISTSERV machine to us than itself and that it must
therefore pass of the transmission as regular mail, that it doesn't
do so in the same way that MASTIST would have done in the old days,
namely by passing all forur names to MAILER thus allowing them to be
transmitted by a single BSMTP transmission from MAILER@BYUADMIN to
[log in to unmask]  Instead, it is causing four separate pieces of
mail to be generated at that point, one for each subscriber.  Thus,
instead of one transmission from MARIST, we are now getting four
from BYUADMIN.  Total network load may be down but our spool
consumption is up.
 
It seems like all that's necessary to have the best of both worlds
is to have the end (from the recipients point of view) LISTSERV node
made better use of MAILER.
 
/June
 
To:  [log in to unmask]