>Obviously there has to be some standard (RFC4000-RFC4999) which is supported
 
RFC4000? You probably mean X.4000? Available  in 4 years, to be implemented in
8 years :-)
 
>EARN  and  BITNET/NetNorth agree  on  the  use  of  special RFC822  tags  and
>everything works
 
But I thought RFC822 was an anachronism and was not part of OSI?
 
I know  I may have sounded  negative, my purpose  was only to stress  the fact
that,  when EARN  does eventually  migrate to  OSI, there  will be  a loss  in
connectivity  anyway.  All 'data'  will  be  exchanged  through some  type  of
'gateway' to  BITNET. Even if EARN  keeps using the same  LISTSERV software as
BITNET, they  will not be  able to communicate as  they do now,  by exchanging
files  via a  direct NJE  transmission  to the  known, flat-address-space  NJE
address.
 
>With the  proposed plan a  (partial) functional  split of the  networks seems
>unavoidable - a situation I dislike.
 
Me too.  Let's have a bit  of philosophy: when I  joined the network, 3  and a
half  years ago,  there was  no  EARN, no  BITNET,  no NetNorth.  There was  a
"network". It was  made up of 3  political entities, but nobody  cared (I mean
the  users). Everybody  was  helping everyone  else, and  it  didn't made  any
difference  whether your  terminal  was a  BITNET or  an  EARN one.  Actually,
LISTSERV penetrated BITNET faster than EARN.
 
Today, we  have three  networks (or  at least two:  EARN and  the rest  of the
world). And within EARN, we have also  several networks (at least two: DFN and
the rest of EARN). This distinction  has been enforced by the politicians, who
have always insisted  on the independence of the various  networks. EARN would
like to "own LISTSERV",  which would be only right since  it was "developed in
EARN" (if not  by EARN). The fact that  only 23% of the LISTSERVs  sit on EARN
CPUs is irrelevant.
 
A functional split between EARN and  BITNET is indeed something I dislike, but
the politicians do desire it and it will eventually happen anyway.
 
>I also don't  know if BITNET/NetNorth want to make  themselves headaches over
>something which  is not a  real problem.  I.e. I don't  know if EARN  made an
>official request to  talk about the efficiency,  functionality and usefulness
>of LISTSERV (or an equivalent tool).
 
What do you mean? Why do you say it's  not a real problem? In any case I doubt
EARN made  such a request. Actually  EARN and BITNET don't  talk (formally) to
each other  very often,  except to ask  each other for  money (eg  sharing the
costs of maintenance of some utilities).
 
  Eric