On Thu, 17 Sep 92 07:53:02 PDT Joe Sparrow said:
>fyi - the note I mentioned yesterday.
>
We will have to start thinking about our plans soon. NetNorth is scheduled
to be no more on Aug. 1/93. That means we will not be getting a BITEARN NODES
file from CANADA01 any more. The NetNorth Admin Committee is supposed to
begin discussing the potential problems of this this fall. So far, it hasn't
started. We need to start to notify our users. We should start by notifying
people to no-longer use BITNET addressing (userid@nodeid) and start changing
now! We also need to make a decision if we want to join CREN (and start paying
fees) or try and form a "son of NetNorth" club in Canada and continue with
volunteer effort. I would like to kill BITNET connectivity soon after Aug.1/93,
but doubt we can.
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>On   Tue,   15    Sep   1992   15:37:29   GMT    Richard   Alan   Schafer
><[log in to unmask]> said:
>
>>The  LISTSERV license  agreement grants  a free  license to  CREN, EARN,
>>etc., members,  and mentions that a  paid license would be  required for
>>anyone else. I know Eric has asked sites who left BITNET to stop running
>>LISTSERV, since they're no longer CREN members. If such a site wanted to
>>continue running LISTSERV, what would be  the charge for doing so? Could
>>that  site   still  communicate  with   other  LISTSERVs  if   the  only
>>connectivity was non-NJE?
>
>I'll answer the  second question first: LISTSERV is built  for BITNET and
>designed around its strong points. Furthermore it is an integrated system
>- most of the  functions rely on other functions to  get their work done.
>The ability of  backbone servers to know about the  lists hosted by other
>servers relies on DISTRIBUTE, which relies on the topology information in
>BITEARN NODES  and on the server  information in PEERS NAMES.  The latter
>relies on the file server functions  for maintenance, and the file server
>functions rely  on DISTRIBUTE for delivery.  If you take away  one of the
>components, you lose most of the functionality.
>
>With no access to  BITNET, there is no BITEARN NODES,  no PEERS NAMES, no
>topology  information and  hence  no DISTRIBUTE.  That's many  components
>missing,  and the  result is  that all  network-wide functions  are gone.
>LISTSERV can still run of course, but  only in local mode - it will think
>it is the only server in the  world, and DISTRIBUTE will be turned into a
>sophisticated pipe to the mailer.
>
>I do not  call that very useful, and  that is one of the  reasons why the
>cost of a  license for non-NJE sites  is pretty low (to stay  on the safe
>side  I won't  give any  figure,  but it's  less  than 1  year of  BITNET
>membership for  a OTC license).  But the main reason  is that I  am doing
>that  only  as  a  favour  to former  BITNET  node  administrators  whose
>management decided  to pull the plug,  or who moved to  greener pastures.
>These are people who understand the limitations and know what needs to be
>done  to  make  LISTSERV  work outside  BITNET  (nothing  extraordinarily
>difficult,  but it's  not trivial  and  there is  zilch documentation  in
>support of  non-BITNET sites). Another important  point is that I  do not
>support  non-BITNET sites,  and they  cannot  get new  versions or  fixes
>automatically via NJE. This means I have  to get the data to them myself,
>and the procedures for doing that are NOT convenient at all. The Internet
>being what  it is,  I have a  choice between putting  the software  on an
>anonymous FTP  directory (simply  out of question),  giving them  a logon
>password  for SEARN  (unacceptable -  in  fact I  don't even  run an  FTP
>server), demanding that they give me a password on their machine (usually
>unacceptable), or  cutting the data into  50+ pieces small enough  not to
>upset SMTP servers and other mail  gateways and sending them as mail. But
>then as  we all know the  Internet doesn't need an  unsolicited bulk data
>transfer protocol - it  has been doing just fine without  one for so many
>years, quite obviously it doesn't need one.
>
>Anyway, this works  because there are very few such  licenses and because
>the people in question are competent and  do not cause me a great deal of
>work. The day  either condition stops being true, the  price will have to
>go up  or I will stop  selling. I am  not interested in spending  my time
>helping people  to coerce software  into working  in degraded mode  in an
>environment it was  not designed to operate with! If  furthermore this is
>used as an  excuse by short-sighted executives to  disconnect from BITNET
>to  save a  few thousands  a year  ("FTP can  replace SENDFILE,  TALK can
>replace TELL  and LISTSERV will remain"),  I will just quit  licensing to
>non-BITNET sites.
>
>  Eric