On Tue, 23 Jan 90 20:30:16 EST Andrew T. Robinson said:
>Various LISTSERVs on the network have concluded that the following
>users are NADs for BITNIC:
>
>                   HRYBYK
>                   SCOTT
>                   EARLEY
>                   ROBINSON
>
>Technically, ROBINSON is the correct NAD (It's my ship! mine!).
>HRYBYK is close, but no cigar.  SCOTT and EARLEY are way off.  It
>seems that some LISTSERV maintainers are not being "good citizens"
>and keeping their node information database up to date.  I can
>sympathize with that, but I'm trying to remove a bunch of userids
>that did not move down from New Jersey from mailing lists across
>the network.  The fact that a bunch of LISTSERVs don't know that
>ROBINSON is BITNIC's NAD (this is starting to sound like a perverse
>childrens' rhyme) is making that difficult.
>
>My question is, is there any way we can get LISTSERV maintainers
>to keep their node information up to date?  What file does LISTSERV
>use to determine who the NAD is?
>
>Andy
 
I saw this last night, and I refused to answer it, because I wanted
to be civil about it.  I'm not sure I can.
 
For quite some time now, we have been asking BITNIC to help enforce
people maintain their routing and mailer tables.  One of the
prime needs of this has been the timely and proper handling by the NIC
of node information(including routing, people, etc)  What have
we gotten?
 
  - FastRoute - a modified version of pathalias.  Something that
    already worked in many Bitnet(and cooperating networks) environments.
    Did the modification increase the number of sites?  Nope.
    Did the modification significantly improve its useability?  Questionable.
    Did the modification fit into the scheme of using NETSERV or other
      EARN developed tools?  No more than anything thing else already existing.
 
  - A new update process that doesn't tie into NETSERV.  People that I
    know are very technically competant who can't get the process to work!
    I'm not as upset as mrg about the change of dates, but it is one more
    example of arbitrarily changing of proceedures, without consultation
    with sites.
 
I'm led to ask several questions.
 
  Is Bitnet a cooperating network?  Or is it blind to the other networks
    that connect to it?
 
  Removing a massive burden from Chris Thomas and Ed Zawacki has been
  delayed twice.  What is BITNIC doing to ensure that it won't happen
  a third time?  Has anyone from the NIC contacted users from sites
  that complained about the NETSERV generated tables?  I know several
  volunteers did.
 
  Why are volunteers and TECHREPs ignored?  These items are NOT new.
 
 
Quite some time ago, I volunteered to peer several BITNIC lists here.
It is only in the last month that anyone at BITNIC has gotten around
to starting to think about helping to maintain them.  Several volunteers
are maintaining them now.  Whose job is it?
 
I periodically query the level of VM Mailers on the network, and compile
a summary.  There are several that are very old, and I attempted to
contact them via people listed in BITEARN NODES.  I had several mail
items rejected as non-existant, so I forwarded them to BITNIC in early
Novemeber.  They are still incorrect.  I haven't even been told "Thanks
for the information".
 
I think I have been very tolerant of the NIC in the past.  I have encouraged
others to give the NIC a chance several times due to changes.  Well,
the staff has been on board for 6 months now.  Can someone please tell
me what is better?
 
 
On a side note while I'm thinking about it; Bitnet has been very fortunate
to have some dedicated help, and it sometimes goes unnoticed or unacknowledged.
I'd like to collect an electronic petition to present to the Board to
ask them to pass a formal resolution thanking Chris and Ed for their
work on the routing tables.  Without their help, this network would
have died a long time ago.  Please send them directly to me.
 
Harry