Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:03:14 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing - battle of the LISTSERVs
              20 Nov 1992 11:50:18 -0500 from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:50:18 -0500 Anastasios Kotsikonas said:

>When  referring to  "conclusions"  like  this, it  would  be helpful  to
>provide references to studies that support such a claim.

No studies to quote, no statement - holy cow, a usenet invasion. Is it so
difficult to  use one's  brain rather than  making pompous  references to
nice  academic studies?  A list  with 8500  Internet recipients  requires
delivering  mail to  at most  8500 Internet  hosts, and  probably a  fair
amount less, but let's say 8500. The list in question would probably fall
into  the  comp  or  alt  hierarchies, or  perhaps  a  group  similar  to
news.answers. That  will reach  a lot  more than  8500 Internet  hosts. I
realize you could  put the newsgroup into a hierarchy  that almost nobody
gets, but then it would be pretty useless.

>In  my next  version of  whatever  is that  I am  doing, I  specifically
>mention:

My  complaint is  that your  server identifies  itself as  'unix listserv
version x.y' or something similar. Many  users won't read the helpfile in
which  you explain  which  is which.  I  would like  you  to change  this
misleading identifier to something like  'unix list manager version x.y',
or you could choose a "name" for your server like the Mailbase folks did.
As long  as it doesn't  say "listserv for  unix" or something  similar, I
don't care what you call it.

>I would kindly ask you to have them contact me.

What makes  you think that all  these users are complaining  about *your*
software? I have seen at least 20 different list managers for unix.

>>Then  how come  people  on  the Internet  aren't  asking  for the  3500
>>existing  BITNET  lists   to  be  split  in  this   fashion  for  their
>>convenience?
>
>Mr. Dupuy just  did. Others may follow. 3 ex-BITNET  nodes have switched
>to whatever  is that I  have provided people with,  one of them  I think
>being NASA.

Wow, NASA!  Gee, am  I supposed  to be  impressed? If  not, what  is your
point? Alex  is the first  person I ever  hear suggesting that  we should
have a unix version of mailing  lists because they provide better service
to Internet users. I have trouble thinking  of Alex as an end user rather
than a CS-type militant. But what I  think is irrelevant - the users will
tell me themselves what they want no matter what I think.

>I suspect Mr. Dupuy refers to the CONCEPT and the IDEA of listserv.

A high-ranking  official of a major  european network stated, in  a board
meeting, that the  BITNET LISTSERV code had been ported  to unix and that
BITNET had thus lost one of its  main assets and could be removed without
causing any harm,  no doubt as the  result of this sort  of statements on
some public list.

>Let me  just say that  2 sites  have successfully peered  their Internet
>lists (using we all know what) with BITNET ones; unfortunately, I do not
>have the specifics and cannot say that it works both ways, so Mr. Thomas
>may have a point, so some clarifications are invited as to why we cannot
>connect as a peer.

I've read this twice and still don't understand. You have somehow plugged
an Internet list and a BITNET list  together, but can't say that it works
both ways because you don't know for  sure? Well, why don't you try then?
Then you seem to  ask me why you can't connect as a  peer, as to the best
of your  knowledge evidence  pointed to the  opposite. Anyway,  you can't
connect to the LISTSERV network as  a peer because this would require you
to implement a load of  inter-server communication functions to do things
like publicizing  your lists  in the automatic  list-of-lists, supporting
"one stop subscription" (send your SUBSCRIBE request to any server and it
will figure  out where the list  is), having peered lists  (which means a
lot more  than just moving  messages from one to  the other), and  so on.
There is no specification of these  protocols and I have neither time nor
desire to attempt  to write a RFC  on the topic. I have  already tried to
play by  the Internet rules once  and we all  know how it ended.  But you
really don't need to worry about me: since unix is unanimously considered
to be the system  of the future and my code only  works on dinosaurs, you
can safely ignore it and develop your  own protocols. Which I am sure you
will do no matter what my advice might be.

  Eric