The problem with these files is that there are very little distribution
points in the States. Very little, that is, just one: BITNIC. When I decided
that BITEARN NODES &co would be REQUIRED for LISTSERV, a lot of people immedia-
tely stopped updating their servers. They eventually contacted me and asked me
how they could obtain the files, because NETSERV did not let them out easily...
and they did not know who is the official NAD for their node :-) Another pro-
blem is the size of the file... I remember one of you sending me mail saying
he HAD ordered the file but it was STILL hanging around CUNYVM/PSUVM, and it
took nearly ONE WEEK for the file to get through... :-)
The idea had occured to me before that all the LISTSERVs have (R/O) access
to all of those files, have file server functions, and could therefore be made
to distribute them. This would be 25 additional distribution points in USA and
Canada... without any increase in required disk space. It's obviously worth the
try.
There are, however, two problems. The first one is that LISTSERV usually does
not have R/W access to the files, and it is therefore NOT possible to have it
receive updated copies of the files directly and automatically from the nearest
Netserv (or the nearest LISTSERV which itself receives from Netserv, etc). In
some cases it would not be possible to give this access to LISTSERV at all, not
only because of security reasons but also because the files are on the Y-disk,
or on the MAILER's 191 disk, etc. This implies that the files will not be
refreshed automatically, and might be outdated... :-( But then, better a two-
months old BITEARN NODES in the node next to you (you'll have to run UPDNODES
twice on it to get the latest version), than the latest version 11 nodes away
(at BITNIC)... I was waiting on DHDIBM1 to come up to discuss the matter with
Bert Pasch, but he'll obviously have more urgent things to do by then...
The other problem is political. The official repository of nodes information
is the official network of Netserv servers for EARN, and the NIC for BITNET.
LISTSERV is not controlled by the network management and can therefore not be
considered as part of this *unless* the files are automatically obtained (via
AFD) from a Netserv server. This may sound ridiculous but it is a REAL problem
and I can already imagine a few notes in my reader from people I'd rather not
have to deal with again. I would of course be the one to receive the complaints
since I wrote the code -- same problem when one list loops due to lack of
coordination between the various owners, by the way.
So, what do you think about this? Should we, or shouldn't we, offer BITEARN
NODES, DOMAIN NAMES and XMAILER NAMES to network users (note that my test 1.5f
version already has a GET = NAD facility which I developped for use with the
LOCSOFT FILELIST so no problem there).
Eric
|
