On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:50:18 -0500 Anastasios Kotsikonas said:
>When referring to "conclusions" like this, it would be helpful to
>provide references to studies that support such a claim.
No studies to quote, no statement - holy cow, a usenet invasion. Is it so
difficult to use one's brain rather than making pompous references to
nice academic studies? A list with 8500 Internet recipients requires
delivering mail to at most 8500 Internet hosts, and probably a fair
amount less, but let's say 8500. The list in question would probably fall
into the comp or alt hierarchies, or perhaps a group similar to
news.answers. That will reach a lot more than 8500 Internet hosts. I
realize you could put the newsgroup into a hierarchy that almost nobody
gets, but then it would be pretty useless.
>In my next version of whatever is that I am doing, I specifically
>mention:
My complaint is that your server identifies itself as 'unix listserv
version x.y' or something similar. Many users won't read the helpfile in
which you explain which is which. I would like you to change this
misleading identifier to something like 'unix list manager version x.y',
or you could choose a "name" for your server like the Mailbase folks did.
As long as it doesn't say "listserv for unix" or something similar, I
don't care what you call it.
>I would kindly ask you to have them contact me.
What makes you think that all these users are complaining about *your*
software? I have seen at least 20 different list managers for unix.
>>Then how come people on the Internet aren't asking for the 3500
>>existing BITNET lists to be split in this fashion for their
>>convenience?
>
>Mr. Dupuy just did. Others may follow. 3 ex-BITNET nodes have switched
>to whatever is that I have provided people with, one of them I think
>being NASA.
Wow, NASA! Gee, am I supposed to be impressed? If not, what is your
point? Alex is the first person I ever hear suggesting that we should
have a unix version of mailing lists because they provide better service
to Internet users. I have trouble thinking of Alex as an end user rather
than a CS-type militant. But what I think is irrelevant - the users will
tell me themselves what they want no matter what I think.
>I suspect Mr. Dupuy refers to the CONCEPT and the IDEA of listserv.
A high-ranking official of a major european network stated, in a board
meeting, that the BITNET LISTSERV code had been ported to unix and that
BITNET had thus lost one of its main assets and could be removed without
causing any harm, no doubt as the result of this sort of statements on
some public list.
>Let me just say that 2 sites have successfully peered their Internet
>lists (using we all know what) with BITNET ones; unfortunately, I do not
>have the specifics and cannot say that it works both ways, so Mr. Thomas
>may have a point, so some clarifications are invited as to why we cannot
>connect as a peer.
I've read this twice and still don't understand. You have somehow plugged
an Internet list and a BITNET list together, but can't say that it works
both ways because you don't know for sure? Well, why don't you try then?
Then you seem to ask me why you can't connect as a peer, as to the best
of your knowledge evidence pointed to the opposite. Anyway, you can't
connect to the LISTSERV network as a peer because this would require you
to implement a load of inter-server communication functions to do things
like publicizing your lists in the automatic list-of-lists, supporting
"one stop subscription" (send your SUBSCRIBE request to any server and it
will figure out where the list is), having peered lists (which means a
lot more than just moving messages from one to the other), and so on.
There is no specification of these protocols and I have neither time nor
desire to attempt to write a RFC on the topic. I have already tried to
play by the Internet rules once and we all know how it ended. But you
really don't need to worry about me: since unix is unanimously considered
to be the system of the future and my code only works on dinosaurs, you
can safely ignore it and develop your own protocols. Which I am sure you
will do no matter what my advice might be.
Eric
|
