In the past, I have had problems receiving AFD'd files from LISTSERV at BITNIC, so I did an AFD for XMAILER NAMES from NETSERV at TCSVM. Well, this morning I received XMAILER NAMES from NETSERV at TCSVM AND from LISTSERV at BITNIC! I expected the files to be the same. When I noticed that the copy from NETSERV was 12 records longer, I started digging a little deeper. The copy from L@B had 1 record not in the copy from [log in to unmask] The copy from N@T had 13 records not in the copy from [log in to unmask] Comparing records for each node, I discovered numerous discrepancies, some minor but many that I think are critical to the proper functioning of XMAILER and LISTSERV. I have included the results of my comparison below. Which is the 'true' copy of XMAILER NAMES? Or are these 'differences' of no real significance to the functioning of the network? Robert Carr Manager of Systems Programming BITNET: C130RDC@UTARLVM1 Missing records: NETSERV at TCSVM LISTSERV at BITNIC ------------------------- ------------------------- DS0RUS1P ? missing ? :net.EARN ARIADNE :net.EARN ? missing ? DHDSPRI6 :net.EARN ? missing ? DOSUNI1 :net.EARN ? missing ? DS0RUS56 :net.EARN ? missing ? FRESCP11 :net.EARN ? missing ? FRMAP711 :net.EARN ? missing ? GRATHDEM :net.EARN ? missing ? GRTHEUN1 :net.EARN ? missing ? IBOENEA :net.EARN ? missing ? IRMENEA :net.EARN ? missing ? ISSUNIV :net.EARN ? missing ? LINKS903 :net.BITNET ? missing ? VERS8903 :net.EARN ? missing ? ':mailer.' tag discrepancies: NETSERV at TCSVM LISTSERV at BITNIC ------------------------- ------------------------- BANUFS11 :mailer.MAILER BSMTP 3 :mailer.MAILER BATATA :mailer.SMTP@HUJICS BSMTP 3 :mailer. BLEKUL14 :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 1 :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 2 DBORUB01 :mailer. :mailer.MAILER DFRRUF1 :mailer. :mailer.PROFS DHAFEU11 :mailer.MAILER BSMTP 3 :mailer.MAILER BSMTP DHDIBM1 :mailer. :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 1 DHDURZ1 :mailer.MAILER :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 1 ELEULE11 :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 1 :mailer. FINOU :mailer.MAILER :mailer.MAILER DEFRT 1 FRFUPL11 :mailer.MAILER :mailer. HDETUD51 :mailer. :mailer.EARNADM@HDETUD51 HDETUD52 :mailer. :mailer.?@HDETUD52 DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE HDETUD53 :mailer. :mailer.BART@HDETUD53 HGRRUG0 :mailer.?@HGRRUG0 DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE :mailer. HUJIFH :mailer.SMTP@HUJICS BSMTP 3 :mailer. HUJINIX :mailer.MAILER@HUJIVMS BSMTP 3 :mailer. HUMUS :mailer.SMTP@HUJICS BSMTP 3 :mailer. HUTRUU0 :mailer.?@HUTRUU0 DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE :mailer. ICINECA3 :mailer. :mailer.MAILER IRMUNISA :mailer.MAILER :mailer. JPNWAS00 :mailer.MAILER BSMTP 3 :mailer.MAILER BSMTP LNCC :mailer.MAILER :mailer.MAILER BITNET 2 MCOIARC :mailer.MAILER BSMTP 3 :mailer.PMDF BSMTP 3 SEQZ51 :mailer.SMTPUSER :mailer. TAURUS :mailer. :mailer.BSMTP BSMTP 3 TECHUNIX :mailer.MAILER BSMTP 3 :mailer. TRENT :mailer.MAILER@TRENT BSMTP 3 :mailer.?@TRENT DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE UALTAMTS :mailer.MAILER@UALTAMTS BITNET :mailer.?@UALTAMTS DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE UOFMCC :mailer.MAILER@UOFMCC BSMTP 3 :mailer.MAILER@UOFMCC DEFRT 1 TRUNCATE VNET :mailer.? NOMAIL 2 :mailer.? NOMAIL 2 VNET VPFMVS :mailer.? NOMAIL 2 :mailer.? NOMAIL 2 VPFMVS ':alias.' tag discrepancies: There are 324 records in the copy from L@B in which the ':alias.' tag is null and the corresponding record in the copy from N@T has an ':alias.' tag that matches the ':nick.' tag. In addition, the following mismatches were noted: NETSERV at TCSVM LISTSERV at BITNIC ------------------------- ------------------------- AECLCR :alias.AECLCR :alias.CRNL DFVLRLA1 :alias.DLRVMLA :alias. BNR :alias.BNR :alias.BNRVMNOR DFVLRBS1 :alias.DLRVMBS :alias.DFVLRBS1 DFVLRGO1 :alias.DLRVMGO :alias.DFVLRGO1 DFVLRKP1 :alias.DLRVMKP :alias.DFVLRKP1 DFVLROP1 :alias.DLRVM :alias.DFVLROP1 DFVLROP2 :alias.DLRMVS :alias.DFVLROP2 DFVLRST1 :alias.DLRVMST :alias.DFVLRST1 EMDCCI11 :alias.EMDCCI11 :alias.EEARN FINABO :alias.FINABO :alias.FOMABO FRIBM11 :alias.FRIBM11 :alias.FRPOI11 UALTAMTS :alias.UALTAMTS :alias.UQVMTS ':netsoft.' tag discrepancies: There are 175 records in the copy from L@B in which the ':netsoft.' tag differs from the tag in the N@T copy only in case (L@B is all UPPER case) or drops the first '.' (period) in a version field (e.g.: 'JES2 1 3.6' instead of 'JES2 1.3.6'). There are 23 records in the L@B copy with a null ':netsoft.' tag where the corresponding record in the N@T copy has a value. In addition, the following mismatches were noted: NETSERV at TCSVM LISTSERV at BITNIC ------------------------- ------------------------- BGUNOS :netsoft.HUmail :netsoft.TIELINE DBSNRV0 :netsoft.NRV/SML modified :netsoft.NRV DD0RUD81 :netsoft.RCOM V4.2 :netsoft.RCOM DERDBS5 :netsoft.ANL NJE :netsoft.ANJE DFVLROP2 :netsoft.JES2 2.2.0 :netsoft.JES2 2 2.1 DGATUM5P :netsoft.ANL NJE :netsoft.ANJE DGHGKSS4 :netsoft.JES2 2.1.7 :netsoft.JES2 2 1.5 DMARUM8 :netsoft.NJE-Simulation :netsoft.NJE DOSUNI :netsoft.Transdata :netsoft.TRANSDAT DS0RUS0 :netsoft.INTERCOM 5 :netsoft.INTERCOM EVALUN11 :netsoft.RSCS V.2 R 2.0 :netsoft.RSCS GRCRUN11 :netsoft.RSCS V2 R4 :netsoft.RSCS V1 R3 GREARN :netsoft.RSCS V2 R4 :netsoft.RSCS V1 R3 HBUNOS :netsoft.HUmail :netsoft.TIELINE HBUNOS :netsoft.HUmail :netsoft.TIELINE HUJINOS2 :netsoft.HUJI Mailer :netsoft.HUJI HUJIVMS :netsoft.HUJI-NJE :netsoft.HUJI-RMF HUMUS :netsoft.RMF :netsoft.HUJI-RMF IBAINFN :netsoft.RSCS V 1 :netsoft.IBM 6031 ICINECA1 :netsoft.NJEF 2.3 :netsoft.NJEF IFIBDP :netsoft.RSCS V2 :netsoft.VTAM V3 R1 SASK :netsoft.JNET 3 2 :netsoft.JNET 3 2:COUNTRY CAN TAUNOS :netsoft.HUmail :netsoft.TIELINE TAURUS :netsoft.UREP 3 :netsoft.UREP TRENT :netsoft.JNET 3.1/PMDF 2.4 :netsoft.JNET TUNS :netsoft.NJEF :netsoft.JNET UALTAMTS :netsoft.RM :netsoft.HOMEBREW UKACRL :netsoft.IBM RSCS V2.2 :netsoft.RSCS V1 UOTADM02 :netsoft.JNET :netsoft.RSCS UTORGPU :netsoft.UREP 2.0 :netsoft.UREP UTORSCG :netsoft.RSCS :netsoft.JNET VOLCANI :netsoft.JNET 3.2 :netsoft.JA JNET 3 2