|
Sender: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@CEARN> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN> |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Apr 90 15:21:37 O |
In-Reply-To: |
Your message of Tue, 3 Apr 90 07:29:23 EDT |
Reply-To: |
Revised LISTSERV forum <LSTSRV-L@CEARN> |
>You're right about that but I think that is more dangerous than the list
>owner learning about USENET and making a concious decision to gateway
>the list. If an end-user subscribes in an attempt to gateway the list
>into USENET you can bet more than half of the time we will see loops or
>complaints that the gateway is not working properly.
True but that can happen also if an end user types /usr/ucb/vacation, or
if a local redistribution list is set up on a site with a funny mailer,
or whatever. People who run USENET gateways are usually responsible
adults who have read the documentation and understood that they've got to
be careful, and I would expect them to notify the list owner about the
gatewaying. If the scheme is changed so that authorization is required,
and a list owner refuses, what will the gateway maintainer do? Add one
line to the code with: if sender='XYZ-L#DUH' then ngroup='bit.listserv.x'
He'll still do the gatewaying if he really wants to, but it will be more
dangerous (for the reasons already explained re: peered lists etc).
Eric
|
|
|