We (Purdue University) are a backbone LISTSERV, but our downstream
sites are not. Thus, we get one file from upstream, explode it, and
send out dozens of files downstream. The backlogs that are caused by
this arrangement have caused my boss to ask: Why are all LISTSERV
sites not setup to be backbone sites?
 
So, please enlighten me with the pros and cons of turning most sites,
all sites, or "all sites which diligently keep their versions of
BITEARN NODES current" into LISTSERV backbone sites.
 
Another question from my boss: Could LISTSERV be modified so that it
would automatically apply updates to BITEARN NODES, or simply shutdown
if its BITEARN NODES file was more that n months out of date, where n
is hardwired and not a parameter? I'm not advocating doing this (yet),
but the shutdown part of the question was amusing and I would like to
hear other people's comments on the concept.
 
 
Rex Bontrager
IBM Systems Programmer, IBM Postmaster, LISTSERV Postmaster
Purdue University Computing Center
West Lafayette, IN   47907
U.S.A.
Bitnet:    rexb@purccvm
Internet:  [log in to unmask]
Phone:     (317) 494-1787 ext. 256