HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:21:51 EST
From: Jim Brilhart <BRILHRT@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sfs-l
Subject:    How long to complete REORG

We have never performed a FILSERV REORG and would like to know if there is
a way to predict how long it might take.

     850065  Data Blocks
      20730  Occupied Data Blocks
         2%  Percent Occupied Data Blocks
     850066  Index Blocks
      15822  Occupied Index Blocks
         2%  Percent Used Index Blocks

From the CMS Planning and Administration Guide, a REORG would be beneficial
if the ratio of occupied data blocks to occupied index blocks gets  below
1 to 1. Ours stands at 1.31 to 1. Should we do it and how long would it take?
Thanks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sfs-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:01:34 EST
From:         "Hetzel, Allan" <SYSAL@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              18 Nov 1992 16:05:27 MST from <A19592@WACCVM.CORP.MOT.COM>

> ... The
> bottom line is that there are many SFS INTERNALS that will produce
> system records.  The filtering of accounting records is a function of an
> application's accounting program.  CMS/SFS do not have a function to
> select only user accounting records, nor is there a function to filter
> them since this should be a function of the accounting programs.

Tim

It seems to me that the SFS people could learn something from the System
Management Facility of MVS. It records just about everything that happens
in MVS and also allows you to turn off any records you don't want. You can
collect certain records when and if you need them. It also provides a filtering
program which allows you select a subset of the generated records.

Saying that the system must generate every possible record and that it is
the my responsibility to throw away what I don't want seems a little lame on
IBM's part. Things like this make me wonder if I really want to put up SFS.
I have better things to do with my CPU cycles and DASD space than waste them on
useless system overhead.

Allan Hetzel
University of Kentucky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sfs-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:15:58 EST
From:         "Roy L. Lehmann" <ROY@NKI.BITNET>
Subject:      QUERY AUTHORIZATIONS

Is there any way to perform the following tasks:
1. List all authorizations given by others to a particalar user?
2. List all authorizations given to others by a particular user?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.


Roy L. Lehmann - Systems Programmer
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research
ROY@NKI.BITNET -- VOICE MAIL: 914 365-2000 ext 1768
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sfs-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:51:00 EST
From:         SBROOKS@PSUHMC.BITNET
Subject:      Questions on Response Time slow down for file controlled
              directories

When reading up on SFS it seemed that at a certain point
response time will be much better for a directory controlled
directory than for a file controlled directory.
So far we have worked with file control directories with small
amounts of files but are now starting to look at setting up some
new directories which would contain many more files (over 2000
large compiles for a start).
Does any one out there know a what point response time would noticeably
slow down for file control directories?  If it slows down on
one directory would it also slow down on other directories as well?

Thanks for any help,

Scott

+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Scott Brooks                         |   Bitnet: SBROOKS@PSUHMC.BITNET      |
| Programmer Analyst                   |--------------------------------------|
| Information Systems                  | Internet: SBROOKS@PSUHMC.HMC.PSU.EDU |
| The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center |--------------------------------------|
| P.O. Box 850                         |    Phone: (717) 531-6954             |
| Hershey, PA 17033                    |--------------------------------------|
|                                      |      Fax: (717) 531-7259             |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
From: michael@aquila.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Michael Naumann)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Subject: Re:      Re: Bitnet-Internet mapping
Date: 19 Nov 1992 12:36:55 GMT
Organization: Westf. Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster, Germany
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aquila.uni-muenster.de

f
g


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:44:38 MET
From:         Ulrich Giese <U001212@HNYKUN11.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Netdata field in DOMAIN NAMES

On Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:10:00 EST Roger Fajman said:
>
>
>> servers1 VMMAIL@PUCC(MAIL,PU,M,BSMTP,P_JWAGNER)
>> servers2 VMMAILB@PUCC(MAIL,PU,M,OUTONLY,P_JWAGNER)
>> servers3 VMMAILT@PUCC(MAIL,ND PU,M,OUTONLY,P_JWAGNER)
>>
>> #1 and #2 I follow, but #3 should be (MAIL,ND,M,OUTONLY...) ????
>
>The servers tag, like the fformat tag, allows a list (separated by
>blanks) of acceptable formats in order of preference.  So "ND" means
>you want only Netdata, while "ND PU" means you prefer Netdata, but
>will accept punch.
      ======
in principle you are right, but the servers-tag specifies 'OUTONLY',
so we can't speak about 'accepting' a special format. however, the specs
of the server-tag does allow this.
-ulrich-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:10:00 EST
From:         Roger Fajman <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Netdata field in DOMAIN NAMES
Comments: cc: HANK@VM.BIU.AC.IL

> servers1 VMMAIL@PUCC(MAIL,PU,M,BSMTP,P_JWAGNER)
> servers2 VMMAILB@PUCC(MAIL,PU,M,OUTONLY,P_JWAGNER)
> servers3 VMMAILT@PUCC(MAIL,ND PU,M,OUTONLY,P_JWAGNER)
>
> #1 and #2 I follow, but #3 should be (MAIL,ND,M,OUTONLY...) ????

The servers tag, like the fformat tag, allows a list (separated by
blanks) of acceptable formats in order of preference.  So "ND" means
you want only Netdata, while "ND PU" means you prefer Netdata, but
will accept punch.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:55:19 IST
From:         Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.BIU.AC.IL>
Subject:      New :netdata. tag

> The proposed new tag would be called
>
> :netdata. YES | NO
>
> YES would indicate that the system listed as :gateway. can accept Netdata
>     files
>
> NO would indicate that the system listed as :gateway. can not accept
>    Netdata files.
>
> The default would be NO.  That means if you leave everything alone, you
> don't need to do anything.  If you upgrade to Mailer 2.09 then you should
> update your entry in DOMAIN NAMES to be :netdata.YES.

In addition, if you have updated your entry in the serversN tag in BITEARN
NODES with the appropriate information, specifying that your mailer will
accept ND format, then that information will automatically be converted over
to DOMAIN NAMES - so that you do not need to send in two separate updates.

So, can I add in this new field to DOMAIN NAMES?  I have tried out MG
and it doesn't croak with a new tag.

Hank Nussbacher
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:20:31 EST
From:         Roger Fajman <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New :netdata. tag
Comments: To: HANK@VM.BIU.AC.IL

> >I'm still interested in why you think it better to define Yet Another
> >Tag rather than using :mformat, which already sort-of exists?
>
> I am not in favor of creating YAT (Yet Another Tag).  I was just
> thinking of the Mailer developers who have to parse and scan the
> DOMAIN NAMES file.  If anything I shouldn't use mformat but rather
> serversN tag.  I have not run an analysis but I would sooner trust the
> value in serversN than in mformat.  And if I go with serversN parsing
> I don't want to create a tag called mformat out of it, which may be
> confused with the mformat tag in BITEARN NODES.  But...

There used to be a tag in BITEARN NODES called :mformat (mail
format), but it was eliminated in the new BITEARN NODES format.
The function of :mformat was incorporated into the :servers tag.

So what I am saying is that as long as DOMAIN NAMES sticks with
old style tags, such as :mailer (which also no longer exists in
BITEARN NODES), it might as well stick with the old tags all the
way, instead of going off in a third direction.

It would suit me fine to convert DOMAIN NAMES to use the :servers
tag instead of :mailer and :gatemast.  I have suggested it before.
It would not break my software.  I can't speak for anything else.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:37:35 -0500
From:         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      Re: New :netdata. tag
Comments: To: Domains Discussion Group <DOMAIN-L@uga.cc.uga.edu>
              17 Nov 92 10:55:19 +0700. <9211170902.AA28457@Princeton.EDU>

> So, can I add in this new field to DOMAIN NAMES?  I have tried out MG
> and it doesn't croak with a new tag.


Hank, After more consideration I think :netdata may be the wrong approach.
Given a script to determine the status of NETDATA support in BITEARN NODES
wouldn't it make more sense to simply copy across the matching mailer
definition as a :servers tag?  If you used the :servers tag, MG
(2.09+) would produce appropriate exit names.  Using the :netdata tag will
cause MG to always generate punched format.

   John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:58:02 EST
From:         Roger Fajman <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: list of bitnet names and internet names
Comments: cc: al@NETCOM.COM

> I have been trying in vain to search for a list of internet names for
> those bitnet sites that are connected to the internet.  For instance
> auvm - auvm.american.edu
> gwuvm - gwuvm.gwu.edu
> bitnic - bitnic.educom.edu
> etc.

See file INTERNET LISTING on LISTSERV@BITNIC.  It's a list of nodes
that have registered their Internet names in BITEARN NODES.

Roger Fajman                                   Telephone:  +1 301 402 1246
National Institutes of Health                  BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA                        Internet:   RAF@CU.NIH.GOV
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:46:02 -0500
From:         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      Re: New :netdata. tag
Comments: To: Domains Discussion Group <DOMAIN-L@uga.cc.uga.edu>
              22 Nov 92 16:26:56 +0700. <9211221438.AA05689@Princeton.EDU>

> >From:         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
> >
> >Hank, After more consideration I think :netdata may be the wrong approach.
> >Given a script to determine the status of NETDATA support in BITEARN NODES
> >wouldn't it make more sense to simply copy across the matching mailer
> >definition as a :servers tag?  If you used the :servers tag, MG
> >(2.09+) would produce appropriate exit names.  Using the :netdata tag will
> >cause MG to always generate punched format.
>
> If that is what people want, I can do that.  I can copy the matching
> mailer definition from the servers tag.  But won't that break all
> non-Mailer 2.09+ mailers?   We need something that won't break the
> existing parsing of DOMAIN NAMES.

If you simply add the :servers tag this change should not break
anything.  Thus the
process would look like:

Send you the value to be placed in the :mailer tag (mailerid@nodeid).
Your code
extracts the matching entry from the :servers tag for nodeid (removing
the OUTONLY
keyword, if present, and adding BSMTP if no other attribute remains)
and places this in
the :servers tag for the gateway.

Updates to the :servers tag in BITEARN NODES produce changes in the
next distribution
of DOMAIN NAMES.  If a mailer does not exist in BITEARN NODES the
gateway entry does
not appear in DOMAIN NAMES (or only appears as comments).

   John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:26:56 IST
From:         Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.BIU.AC.IL>
Subject:      Re: New :netdata. tag

>From:         Roger Fajman <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>
>
>I'm still interested in why you think it better to define Yet Another
>Tag rather than using :mformat, which already sort-of exists?

I am not in favor of creating YAT (Yet Another Tag).  I was just
thinking of the Mailer developers who have to parse and scan the
DOMAIN NAMES file.  If anything I shouldn't use mformat but rather
serversN tag.  I have not run an analysis but I would sooner trust the
value in serversN than in mformat.  And if I go with serversN parsing
I don't want to create a tag called mformat out of it, which may be
confused with the mformat tag in BITEARN NODES.  But...

>From:         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
>
>Hank, After more consideration I think :netdata may be the wrong approach.
>Given a script to determine the status of NETDATA support in BITEARN NODES
>wouldn't it make more sense to simply copy across the matching mailer
>definition as a :servers tag?  If you used the :servers tag, MG
>(2.09+) would produce appropriate exit names.  Using the :netdata tag will
>cause MG to always generate punched format.

If that is what people want, I can do that.  I can copy the matching
mailer definition from the servers tag.  But won't that break all
non-Mailer 2.09+ mailers?   We need something that won't break the
existing parsing of DOMAIN NAMES.

So, back to you guys, whats it gonna be?  Should I add a new line
called mailerx (or anything) with the extracted BITEARN NODES
info only for those systems that have defined a Netdata capable mailer?
That means some entries might have 3 lines and some might have 4.  Will
that break anything?  Or should I add a mailerx tag to each entry,
thereby increasing the size of the DOMAIN NAMES file by 25%?   Or do
I create a netdata tag and base the information on user supplied updates
and machine generated tags from BITEARN NODES?

Hank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
From: schafer@is.rice.edu (Richard Alan Schafer)
Subject: Re:      Re: Netdata field in DOMAIN NAMES
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:23:14 GMT

In article <9211161647.AA15270@Princeton.EDU>,         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
writes:

|> I'd even vote for a requirement that all mailers that appear in DOMAIN
|> NAMES
|> must be defined in BITEARN NODES.

I definitely agree with this.

-- 
Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
X-Envelope-to: DOMAIN-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: NetMail%"DOMAIN-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:15:00 EST
From:         Mark_Strawcutter <MJSTRAW@IUP.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Netdata field in DOMAIN NAMES

>>2. userid@node   where no matching mailer is defined

>>Class 2 needs a manual update. Do you actually have any in this category? If
>Quite a few.  Here is an exception report I just ran off comparing
>the :gateway. in DOMAIN NAMES and the :servers. in BITEARN NODES:
>...
>This report flags the following:
>- Those nodes with a gateway defined in DOMAIN NAMES with a server tag
>  in BITEARN NODES but which does not define the :gateway. defined
>  in DOMAIN NAMES

What is wrong with having a gateway that's different from the mailer?  I
should be able to request that mail coming in for user@foobar.iup.edu to
to SMTP@IUP while "regular" mail to user@IUP go to MAILER@IUP

>If someone would care to define to me all the rules involved here I
>will gladly write up the program to merge the info into DOMAIN NAMES
>from the already existing BITEARN NODES.  I also agree to run the merge
>program after every BITEARN NODES update but as John pointed out, that
>would cause a slight (30 day) propogation delay in those updates.

By "merge" I assume you mean the ND stuff out of matching server tags?

----------
Mark J Strawcutter                           BitNet:    MJSTRAW@IUP
Director, Systems and Communications         DNS (mx):  mjstraw@grove.iup.edu
Indiana University of Pennsylvania           Voice:     (412) 357-4000
Indiana, PA   15705                          "you can't nail jello to a tree"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:50:11 EST
From:         Roger Fajman <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New :netdata. tag

> So, can I add in this new field to DOMAIN NAMES?  I have tried out MG
> and it doesn't croak with a new tag.
>
> Hank Nussbacher

I'm still interested in why you think it better to define Yet Another
Tag rather than using :mformat, which already sort-of exists?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.domain-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:47:11 -0500
From:         jwagner@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Netdata field in DOMAIN NAMES
Comments: To: Domains Discussion Group <DOMAIN-L@uga.cc.uga.edu>
              16 Nov 92 09:15:00 -0500. <9211161426.AA01696@Princeton.EDU>

> >>2. userid@node   where no matching mailer is defined
>
> >>Class 2 needs a manual update. Do you actually have any in this
category? If
> >Quite a few.  Here is an exception report I just ran off comparing
> >the :gateway. in DOMAIN NAMES and the :servers. in BITEARN NODES:
> >...
> >This report flags the following:
> >- Those nodes with a gateway defined in DOMAIN NAMES with a server tag
> >  in BITEARN NODES but which does not define the :gateway. defined
> >  in DOMAIN NAMES
>
> What is wrong with having a gateway that's different from the mailer?  I
> should be able to request that mail coming in for user@foobar.iup.edu to
> to SMTP@IUP while "regular" mail to user@IUP go to MAILER@IUP

Mark, There is nothing wrong with doing that.  But at the same time, it is
now possible to define

:node.IUP
    :servers1.MAILER@IUP(MAIL,ND PU,M,BSMTP,P_MJSTRAW)
    :servers2.SMTP@IUP(MAIL,ND PU,M,OUTONLY,P_MJSTRAW)

and then define your gatway in DOMAIN NAMES as SMTP@IUP.  This would allow
Hank to automate his updating of DOMAIN NAMES without affecting your mail
flow.

I'd even vote for a requirement that all mailers that appear in DOMAIN NAMES
must be defined in BITEARN NODES.

   John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:11:48 EDT
From:         elaine <EGALE@KENTVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gallaudet students
              18 Nov 1992 14:17:01 -0700 from <MUTH_M@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU>

Hello Michelle-

If it is a student, why don't you try using that students first letter of
the first name with the last name.  Don't forget to add the 11.  If it
doesn't work, the message will come back to you and if it works (hopefully)
the message will go through.   I don't know if you can get the students userid
name but if you give me the name I can check for you since I still have
my gally account.


 Elaine
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:20:05 -0400
From:         CXLNVD@RITVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Deafness CURE!

Congratulations on the 'marriage' -- and so good to know that you and he are
grabbing a 'slice' of the American Dream, and hoping to share it with
a kid.  It's because of you and him that America is fulfilling its potential
-- to whit: freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Myself, I long to hear birds singing.  I used to think that when it rained,
it would sound like 'plink plonk plink' magnified a thousand times, and
that one could hear each little individual raindrop splatter on the ground.
I just found out that it sounds like sort of white noise.  Too bad.

I also thought that melting snow makes a sort of crinkling sound like when
you scrunch up aluminium foil -- because when you see it in the sunlight,
you see the sparkles, and I thought it makes crinkling sounds! ;)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:46:31 -0400
From:         CXLNVD@RITVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 60 mins story

Jill... about "environmental sounds."  While you state that they 'drive
you crazy' -- please remember that the deaf person's perception of
an einvironmental sound is different from your perception.  The sound
of a vacuum cleaner might not drive *me* crazy, but I do appreciate
that I'm able to hear and distinguish an airplane, the door knock, the
phone ring, the refrigerator humming (it causes a magnetic field and plans
, er, plays havoc with my hearing!), stiletto heels tiptapping (that is
the MOST annoying noise for me!), a car varooming by/vrooming by, the
ambulance, etc.  I guess I benefit from hearing the ambulance coming
because I think I would have been hit head on by a few ones in my life
had I not been wearing my hearing aid! ;)

R.I.P. not quite yet! ;)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"DEAF-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:19:00 EST
From:         PS308LEC@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Question from a hearie...

In regards to the question "How do people usually communicate with hearies
when there isn't a tty or TDD or interpreter around? Lots of pen and paper?
Or doesn't it come up that much?
My response: Doesn't everyone have access to a TTY through an operator? I had
taken a class and I heard it there. Of course the deaf individual has to have
a TTY at his/her house but the hearie can call a certain operator and call
the person that way. If I am mistaken, please let me know.
-Laura
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:51:08 EST
From:         "Cathy Brandt" <CBRAN00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: this and that from the teacher
              20 Nov 1992 16:27:49 -0600 from
              </PN=BRENDA.L.MONENE/O=DEAFTEK/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@SPRINT.COM>

Yes Brenda I did.  Thanks a lot.  I've sent mail to what I thought was all
three of you.  It didn't bounce back to me so I assumed you each received your
messages.  Hmmmmmm,

Let me know.  I would love~Hr tomy do some joint projects with NYSD.

Cathy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:59:29 EST
From:         askwersk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      Re: gallaudet students
              18 Nov 92 15:59:27 -0500. <9211190605.AA21387@Athena.MIT.EDU>

Michelle:

if you are on internet, you can finger gallaudet students.

try "finger <students last name>@internet address"

This will give you their '11' username


Adam
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU