Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:50:18 -0500
From:         Anastasios Kotsikonas <tasos@CS.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Large list processing - battle of the LISTSERVs
Comments: To: LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu, dupuy@cs.columbia.edu
Comments: cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, unix-listserv@stormking.com

Gentlemen,
this is in reply to both messages sent recently by Mr. Alex Dupuy
and Mr. Eric Thomas; I would like to clarify a few things and give credit
were necessary.

ET> general, then let's talk bandwidth/resources,  and the conclusion is that
ET> a usenet  group with  only 10k  subscribers is a  waste of  resources and

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

ET> bandwidth  due  to  the  tremendous   amount  of  hosts  which  will  get
ET> information they are not interested in, batched or not batched.

Keep in mind that each site CHOOSES which news groups to carry and which
not to, so such generalizations COULD be, but not necessarily ARE true.

AD> I'm sorry  if the existence  of a different (and  somewhat incompatible)
AD> implementation of LISTSERV bothers you.

ET> You got it wrong.  I have no problem with the existence  of 200 unix list
ET> managers, as  long as they  don't call themselves 'unix  listserv version
ET> x.y' and don't claim  in their documentation to be a  'port of the bitnet
ET> listserver'.

In my next version of whatever is that I am doing, I specifically mention:
****
LISTSERV is a system that was originally designed by Eric Thomas for
BITNET nodes and extensive help on that system is available from your
favorite BITNET node (uga.cc.uga.edu for example; send email to
listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu for more information). This version is a bitnet-
flavored UNIX implementation (not a port of the original LISTSERV), written
(and still developed) by Tasos Kotsikonas and a group of current users.
No connection exists between the two implementations, except that the
latter was influenced by the the former, and lots of requests are similar.
****

[comments on the truthfulness of the above are welcome].

Now, what each list manager calls himself/herself has no relevance to the
discussion.

ET> How do you think I feel when users start reporting bugs they
ET> found on  these servers to  *me*, and then  insulting me for  having made

I would kindly ask you to have them contact me. So far NO ONE HAS INSULTED
ME ABOUT ANYTHING!!!! And there have been a lot of bug reports.

ET> Then how come people on the  Internet aren't asking for the 3500 existing
ET> BITNET  lists to  be split  in this  fashion for  their convenience?  Try

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.

AD> I believe that both implementations of LISTSERV support mail

ET> This is exactly the kind of statement  that I object to. The software you
ET> are using is  NOT an implementation of LISTSERV. It  isn't compatible, it

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

ET> it cannot connect to LISTSERV as a peer, it just does about the same sort of

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.

Sincerely,

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