Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:37:26 EST
Reply-To:     dupuy@cs.columbia.edu
From:         Alexander Dupuy <dupuy@TIEMANN.CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Large list processing - battle of the LISTSERVs
Comments: To: LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
Comments: cc: unix-listserv@stormking.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com
              Thomas on Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:43:35 +0100)

In reply to my message on LSTSRV-L suggesting a 3-way split of a large (10000
subscriber) mailing list between BITNET LISTSERV, Unix LISTSERV, and a Usenet
newsgroup, Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET> writes:

> I'm afraid I don't follow the logic. Apart from the fact that the average
> distribution takes one order of magnitude less resources on BITNET than on
> the Internet (and that's quoting an *average* reduction factor - for a list
> of this size the difference would be even bigger), usenet is not going to
> save any bandwidth if there are only 10,000 people interested in the
> information, as the postings will be sent to a lot more hosts than it would
> with the list.

I'm not sure exactly what "resources" you are comparing when you say that
BITNET uses an order of magnitude less to distribute messages (and it's not
clear whether you are comparing BITNET to Internet SMTP, Internet NNTP, or
something else).  My feeling is that any comparison of "resources" will be a
case of apples and oranges, especially when comparing networks as different as
BITNET and Internet.  What matters is whether the owners and other users of
the resources in question feel whether the resources are overloaded or not.
If dumping 8000 mail addresses for expansion on a single INTERBIT MAILER
doesn't significantly affect its ability to forward other mail in a timely
fashion, or do any of the other things it is supposed to do, then there is no
problem.  The only people who can adequately judge that are the administrators
of the INTERBIT MAILER in question.

As for a comparison between mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups, I think that
just comparing "bandwidth" is rather simplistic.  First of all, even bandwidth
comparisons are difficult, since netnews typically batches hundreds of
articles together for transmission, often using compression, while mail tends
to be piece by piece.  Second, one of the big advantages of newsgroups is that
the distribution mechanism is completely separate from mail.  If so many large
messages are sent that the spooling area for news overflows, there is usually
no impact on the mail system.  Also, only one copy of each message is stored,
regardless of the number of recipients on each machine.

Finally, Usenet newsgroups are a different medium than mailing lists - they
have more topical organization than mailing lists, and it is much easier to
drop in and out of a newsgroup whenever one wants to.  Many people gateway
mailing lists to local newsgroups just to take advantage of the features of
the medium.  So my feeling is that unless there are real problems with
gatewaying to a newsgroup (like inappropriate postings from news readers)
newsgroup gateways are desirable whenever a significant number of subscribers
would prefer to receive the list as a newsgroup.

> This list was apparently set up to distribute announcement/digest type
> messages, rather than to solicit discussions.

This does not mean that a newsgroup is inappropriate; a moderated newsgroup
might be desirable if people preferred to receive messages through the medium
of news, especially if the postings were large (e.g. postscript documents).
However, given the short-term nature of the list, it does seem like setting up
newsgroup and other gateways might not be worth the trouble.  However, I think
it is worth considering if the NAVIGATE workshop is offered again.

> May I ask what adding a unix so-called-LISTSERV Internet list would buy you?

I'm sorry if the existence of a different (and somewhat incompatible)
implementation of LISTSERV bothers you.  If you want, trademark the name
LISTSERV, I don't care - I didn't write or name the Unix implementation - I
just use it, and like it.

> I realize I am sounding dense, but I simply don't understand what there is
> to gain from splitting a perfectly working list into two separate lists
> using different, incompatible software and then attempting to somehow
> reconcile the whole mess, especially if postings are infrequent.

The BITNET and Internet communities have different needs and preferences, and
it is not surprising that there are differences between the two LISTSERV
implementations.  However, they are compatible enough that the 5 or 6 commands
which are all that 90% of the subscribers ever use are the same.

Given a list split and gatewayed between BITNET and Internet, there are
advantages for the subscribers on both networks.  The first advantage (and the
reason I suggested it in the beginning) is that the INTERBIT mail gateway only
has to expand one address, and the peered Unix LISTSERVs can spread the mail
load amongst themselves more easily than appears to be the case with BITNET
LISTSERV and the INTERBIT gateways.

But there are other reasons why people on the Internet might prefer to
subscribe to the Internet half of a mailing list.  One is that the latest
version of Unix LISTSERV supports interactive sessions, so that Internet users
don't have to wait for mail batch processing to subscribe/unsubscribe/etc.
Yes, I know that BITNET LISTSERV has a similar feature (using RSCS SEND, I
think).  But that feature isn't accessible to users who aren't on BITNET.

Another feature is the ability to subscribe to a digested version of the
mailing list, automatically created by Unix LISTSERV.  Other, less visible,
features could include better support for future Internet mail standards than
might be available on the INTERBIT gateways.

Finally, I don't think that "reconcil[ing] the whole mess" will be that
difficult.  I believe that both implementations of LISTSERV support mail
gateways to Usenet newsgroups - there seems to me to be no reason why the same
features couldn't be used to gateway between the two LISTSERV systems.

> The LISTSERV backbone happily delivers 4-6 millions of messages a day and
> few sites ever complain about resulting CPU or network load. The only issue
> is what happens to private mail on the poor machine which suddenly gets
> 8,500 recipients to handle, and if it is a problem it should be easy to peer
> the list.

I'm sure that the BITNET LISTSERV system is by far the most efficient way of
delivering mail to sites which are on BITNET.  It may even be more efficient
at delivering mail to sites which aren't.  But that doesn't mean that Unix
LISTSERV may not have more to offer to Internet subscribers, who may care less
about efficiency than about the features which are available to them.  And it
doesn't mean that there is no reason to provide the lists as Usenet newsgroups
as well.

I'm not proposing that everybody move all their BITNET LISTSERV lists onto
Unix LISTSERV lists.  But I think having two implementations for the two
communities, and taking advantage of both, it a better solution than insisting
that everybody use one or the other.

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