> From: "A. Ralph Papakhian" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>My list is at iubvm (Bloomington, IN). I havn't noticed any
>problems myself, but today I received two messages from subscribers
>saying that they had not received any list mail for two days.
>There subs are OK, and there has been traffic on the list.
>One message was from New Orleans, and the other was from Los Angeles.
>Has something collapsed in the network that would prevent listserv
>mail from being delivered south and west of Bloomington, IN?
 
        I am here in USENET (bit.listserv.lstsrv-l) looking for
        the same answers as Ralph.  I too have a list at IUBVM,
        but I don't normally manage it from IUBVM (as does Ralph),
        nor via Bitnet (as far as my understanding goes)
 
        I have received a couple of dozen messages from subscribers
        saying they have not received anything for two days.  Their
        subs are all okay, and since I am so close, I have no trouble
        seeing the traffic that does exist on the list, nor in sending
        commands to LISTSERV (across internet).
 
        All these subscribers are coming in from InterNet and from
        all directions of the compass.  I noticed some complaints on
        another list (CHRISTIA) about similar delays, but that was
        several days ago, and not the last two days.  There seemed to
        be a willingness to blame the UGA connection along Internet.
        The complaintants who have gotten back to me confirmed that
        Georgia was in their path as per the headers.
 
        My reason for writing is to provide some more details and
        to sort out how what you have said below jibes with the above.
        Please educate me (us).  Specifically, how does the BITNET
        core interact with INTERNET aliasing and distributions of
        mail over internet such that a BITNET core delay affects
        Internet traffic (in particular that through UGA.EDU, possibly)?
         forgive the syntax...I'm sick today
 
        Thanks
 
In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Eric Thomas  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>There have been serious delays in  the BITNET core while the UIUCVM42 and
>UICVM regions  were consolidated into  a single region, known  as UICBIT.
>This turned  out to be  too much traffic after  all, so the  regions were
>split again into UICBIT and  UICBIT2, yesterday afternoon I think. Things
>seem to be settling down now and hopefully the queues will clear over the
>weekend and  the problem  will be  gone. I  should perhaps  clarify that,
>while I am aware of all this because I also run a core site and am on the
>corresponding lists, I am not involved  in the management of the US core,
>and I am not a spokesman for the  people who do manage the core. I'm just
>answering your question :-)
>
>  Eric
 
 
--
  Deacon Mark Gilstrap -- ADDRESS: 500 West 13th Street, Bloomington, IN 47404
       EMAIL:[log in to unmask]  WORK:812/855-2493  HOME:812/332-8508
Owner-ORTHODOX| send: SUB ORTHODOX realname  to: [log in to unmask]