HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:29:54 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
Comments: cc: Jim Conklin <conklin@bitnic.BITNET>

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:06:03 -0500 <GATEH@CONNCOLL> said:
 (text deleted...)
> ...                                        I don't have a clear
>sense from CREN exactly what the general philosophy for future
>planning is, whether there will be a tightening down and making the
>best of what's here, or more of an expansion, with the notion of
>attracting new members and architectures.

 I think we'd all benefit from hearing CREN address this issue.
 I had hoped that this discussion would prompt a response from
 someone from CREN.  I'm CC'ing a copy of this note to Jim Conklin
 in case he's not monitoring this list.  With trade rags calling
 for Bitnet's head on a platter, I'm surprised that CREN hasn't
 made some sort of "statement of intent" about the future of the
 network already.

>Gregg TeHennepe | Comp & Info Services | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
>Post/Hostmaster | Connecticut College  | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll

 -jj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:39:13 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              21 Jan 1993 16:08:48 -0500 from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:08:48 -0500 GATEH@CONNCOLL said:

>By  "desktop"  I  was  referring  to   neither  unix  nor  VMS,  but  to
>microcomputers, my  apologies for ambiguity.  I was attempting  to point
>out that  while TCP/IP runs  on micros fairly  well, and as  such brings
>Internet services directly to my desktop, RSCS does not.

This is  only true  with the  assumption that the  services you  want are
Internet services,  or at  least services  with the  Internet philosophy.
RSCS clearly  won't bring  these services  to your  desktop, but  it will
bring them to department computers, large and small, to which your PC can
easily talk. Besides  which, it takes a  pretty serious PC to  get a good
Internet service. If  you're going for low cost, putting  a full suite of
Internet services on each  and every PC on campus may not  be a good deal
at all.

>Not  being a  networking programmer,  I  have no  intimate knowledge  of
>either protocol,  however observation  would lead me  to think  that the
>consensus of thousands of programmers  and professionals around the nets
>can't be too far off the mark.

Yeah, and that  is exactly how MS-DOS  and the 8086 became  what they are
today. There may be 50M people running  MS-DOS, but would you jump to the
conclusion that  so many people can't  possibly be wrong and  thus MS-DOS
must be  technologically superior,  and things not  for MS-DOS  should be
phased out?

>I see a fairly high  level of self-motivated programming and development
>on the Internet, and I don't see that on BITNET.

Thanks.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:06:03 -0500
From:         GATEH@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

> >I don't  know enough  about the  history of BITNET  to know  what drives
> >development  on VAX  and  IBM  machines, but  whatever  it was/is,  it's
> >missing from the unix part of the community.
>
> Oh,  that much  I can  answer. There  is virtually  no unix  community on
> BITNET (8% of  nodes claim to run  unix, but among these  are many "fake"
> nodes which don't  correspond to a real machine but  simply intercept the
> mail and pipe it to SMTP, just  to provide a mail-only BITNET address for
> a unix  machine).

Hmm, I knew there weren't many, but didn't realize it was that small
a number.  Perhaps addressing the need for better support for unix
on BITNET is not a serious issue with regards to the future of
BITNET.

> To this lack  of potential programmers you  have to add
> the fact that UREP isn't precisely  conducive to enthusiasm for NJE. If I
> were  in charge  of BITNET  I  would never  have accepted  to let  people
> connect with  such buggy software.  It simply doesn't provide  a SERVICE,
> all it does is  give a bad impression of NJE.

[illuminating Japanese example deleted for brevity]

> As far as I'm concerned I'd rather they [unix sites] left BITNET,
> because the  connection they have today is  totally worthless and
> they can only get better service from the Internet.
>
>   Eric

Are you saying that there should be little or no attempt to include
unix/open systems machines in the future of BITNET?  I can
understand that given current programming and development resources
on BITNET and the number of current unix sites it could very well
make sense to focus the network and its resources only on those
machines with full-blown NJE connectivity.  I don't have a clear
sense from CREN exactly what the general philosophy for future
planning is, whether there will be a tightening down and making the
best of what's here, or more of an expansion, with the notion of
attracting new members and architectures.  If the philosophy calls
for expansion, do you think that can be done without including
unix/open systems machines?

Cheers   - Gregg

Gregg TeHennepe | Comp & Info Services | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
Post/Hostmaster | Connecticut College  | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:06:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:48:52 +0100,
   Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET> said:
> Users  aren't supposed  to deal  with routing  tables, link  definitions,
> BITEARN  NODES  updates,  and  the  like. That's  what  you  have  system
> administrators for.

Or that's what you have JES2 for.  At my previous employer, we had a
20 node NJE network (which is small compared to Bitnet but it seemed
large to us.)  If I recall correctly, the only time we had to change
the JES2 configuration was when new nodes were added.  When lines were
moved around, the JES2 path manager handled everything on the fly.
So NJE doesn't inherently mean that there are boring recurring
maintenance tasks.  A poor NJE software implementation does.

Anyway, from what I overhear from the next office, I'd say that NJE is
easier to administer than IP.  BUT THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE PICTURE.  Ip
also provides remote logon, which NJE doesn't.  For that, IBM's
protocol is SNA.  From my limited experience, I think ip is easier to
deal with than SNA.  And that's not saying much.

/Leonard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:55:08 IST
From:         Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.TAU.AC.IL>
Subject:      Re: Better DISTRIBUTE delivery time statistics

>Here are the new results:
>
>+----------+-----------------------+
>| Delivery |      Extra delay      |
>| method   | Penn State    Poland  |
>+----------+------------+----------+
>| BITNET   |   0 min 16 | 0 min 01 |
>| Mixed    |   1 min 36 | 4 min 40 |
>| Internet |  65 min 51 |67 min 15 |
>+----------+------------+----------+

I just find it hard to believe that Internet mail takes an hour
vs. Bitnet mail which takes 16 seconds.  My gut feeling is that
something is wrong in this test setup.  Every time I have sent
e-mail via the Internet and I get that nice acknowledgement
from SMTP that the mail has been sent, it is usually 2-5 minutes
after I send it and not an hour later.  My links to abroad are
64kb and very heavily saturated (100% to USA and 70% to Europe)
so you can't say it is because we have better connectivity.  I
suspect your numbers are off by an hour (perhaps time zone
differences were miscalculated or perhaps some SMTP is retrying
only every hour, I am not sure).  But I know that the only time
mail takes over an hour via the Internet is if my link is down
or the destination site is down.

>  Eric

Hank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Syracuse University Computing Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:51:06 LCL
From:         Network Manager <NETMAN@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Better DISTRIBUTE delivery time statistics

Perhaps I should supply a description of the little "race" Eric and
I have been running.

1) The list involved is NOVELL@SUVM.  It's large, 1,200+ subscribers
   and active, 100+ postings per day on most week days.

2) Approximately 1/3 of the subscribers have BITNET addresses.

3) A second 1/3 have domain addresses served by a specific gateway
   named in DOMAIN NAMES

4) The remaining third have domain addresses served by SMTP@INTERBIT.
   These addresses are routed through SMTP@SUVM by modifying
   DOMAIN NAMES.

5) The "start-line" for the race is the time stamp in the RFC822
   Date: line of the SHORTBsmtp header as constructed by LISTSERV.

6) The "finish-line" is the time stamp in the Received: line supplied
   by the MTA making final delivery.

7) The test addresses were placed approximately in the middle of the
   list.


Glenn A. Malling (NETMAN@SUVM) or netman@suvm.syr.edu
Syracuse University Computing Services   +1 (315) 443-4111
Machinery Hall  Syracuse, New York 13244-1260
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:07:32 -0500
From:         GATEH@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

> >Not  being a  networking programmer,  I  have no  intimate knowledge  of
> >either protocol,  however observation  would lead me  to think  that the
> >consensus of thousands of programmers  and professionals around the nets
> >can't be too far off the mark.
>
> Yeah, and that  is exactly how MS-DOS  and the 8086 became  what they are
> today. There may be 50M people running  MS-DOS, but would you jump to the
> conclusion that  so many people can't  possibly be wrong and  thus MS-DOS
> must be  technologically superior,  and things not  for MS-DOS  should be
> phased out?

Point well taken.  Unfortunately, at a small school like ours, with
no academic programming staff, we must more or less follow.  That's
why we have hundreds of MS-DOS machines on campus, and are now
looking at implementing the client/server TCP/IP-based software
available via the Internet.

Unfortunately we don't have the resources to contribute to software
development on either BITNET or the Internet.  About the best we can
do is implement services as best we can on both, and then offer
access to those services back to the nets.  While I can setup a
gopher server fairly easily (at least technically speaking), I can't
setup LISTSERV, even tho I've had numerous requests from folks
here.  LISTSERV is possibly the finest single service on BITNET, but
unfortunately it won't run on my unix box.  I don't know enough
about the history of BITNET to know what drives development on VAX
and IBM machines, but whatever it was/is, it's missing from the unix
part of the community.  Perhaps this is something CREN should look
into as one element of keeping the net together.

> >I see a fairly high  level of self-motivated programming and development
> >on the Internet, and I don't see that on BITNET.
>
> Thanks.

My sincere apologies, Eric, for not noting the clear exception of
your work.  If only that level of motivation, skill, and attention
to quality had gone into, oh, say, UREP... Jim Jones and I have
mused in personal communication what effect that might have had on
the net as a whole.

Cheers     - Gregg

Gregg TeHennepe | Comp & Info Services | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
Post/Hostmaster | Connecticut College  | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:56:44 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              22 Jan 1993 08:07:32 -0500 from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:07:32 -0500 GATEH@CONNCOLL said:

>I don't  know enough  about the  history of BITNET  to know  what drives
>development  on VAX  and  IBM  machines, but  whatever  it was/is,  it's
>missing from the unix part of the community.

Oh,  that much  I can  answer. There  is virtually  no unix  community on
BITNET (8% of  nodes claim to run  unix, but among these  are many "fake"
nodes which don't  correspond to a real machine but  simply intercept the
mail and pipe it to SMTP, just  to provide a mail-only BITNET address for
a unix  machine). To this lack  of potential programmers you  have to add
the fact that UREP isn't precisely  conducive to enthusiasm for NJE. If I
were  in charge  of BITNET  I  would never  have accepted  to let  people
connect with  such buggy software.  It simply doesn't provide  a SERVICE,
all it does is  give a bad impression of NJE. Let me  give you a concrete
example. Japan has restructured part of its NJE network and the result is
that a UREP  machine was made into  a regional hub. From that  day on all
hell broke loose. When I sent the 1.7e LISTSERV update to a server behind
that UREP  machine, 4 out of  the 6 files arrived  corrupted (fortunately
LISTSERV  runs a  CRC on  the  files before  updating itself  - the  UREP
machine did  not destroy the structure  of the file, it  just changed the
contents of the data blocks!). I resent,  this time "only" 3 out of the 6
files  were corrupted.  As  far as  I'm concerned  I'd  rather they  left
BITNET, because the  connection they have today is  totally worthless and
they can only get better service from the Internet.

  Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:32:49 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: :internet tag errors
              25 Jan 1993 14:16:40 EST from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

If you have two NJE nodes, let's  call them XYZ1 and XYZ2, which actually
are  the same  physical machine  and both  claim to  be XYZ.EDU,  then as
explained  in the  message you  quoted  LISTSERV will  not do  transitive
mapping and will  not know what JOE@XYZ1 and JOE@XYZ2  are the same user.
Obviously if  no message, command  or file is  ever allowed to  leave the
machine with an origin  of XYZ1 this may not matter,  but then it doesn't
really matter whether XYZ1 has a  ':internet.' tag or not. Furthermore if
a user sends a  GET request via mail from XYZ.EDU  and the requested file
is a binary file, it may end up  being shipped to the XYZ1 node which you
wanted to have only as backup.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Syracuse University Computing Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:01:42 LCL
From:         Network Manager <NETMAN@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Better DISTRIBUTE delivery time statistics

Nuts!  I forgot two other important items.

8) The resolver retry time in SMTP@SUVM is 20 minutes.

9) The transmit retry time in SMTP@SUVM is 15 minutes.


Glenn A. Malling (NETMAN@SUVM) or netman@suvm.syr.edu
Syracuse University Computing Services   +1 (315) 443-4111
Machinery Hall  Syracuse, New York 13244-1260
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:16:13 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              22 Jan 1993 10:06:03 -0500 from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:06:03 -0500 GATEH@CONNCOLL said:

>Are you  saying that  there should  be little or  no attempt  to include
>unix/open systems machines in the future of BITNET?

It depends  what you mean by  BITNET. When I  say BITNET, I mean  the NJE
network, not the  CREN association. What CREN does with  its future is an
issue  I have  zero  or  negative influence  on  (see  the "white  pages"
nonsense), so  I will not waste  my time talking about  that. Sticking to
NJE, yes  I think unix sites  should be discouraged from  joining until a
decent NJE  implementation is available.  But this isn't a  problem since
the amount of new unix sites  is virtually nonexistent, the population is
mostly sites which were there at the beginning (when the Internet was out
of their reach)  and keep the address, if not  the actual NJE connection,
so that users don't need to change their business cards.

>I  can  understand  that   given  current  programming  and  development
>resources on BITNET  and the number of current unix  sites it could very
>well make  sense to focus  the network and  its resources only  on those
>machines with full-blown NJE connectivity.

I'm  afraid  there   is  a  misunderstanding  there.   There  aren't  any
"resources" that could  be focused on this or that.  What resources there
are from  organizations such as CREN  or EARN are, at  about 80-90%, busy
with network administration and all sorts of other tasks which have to be
done to  keep the network working.  The remainder doesn't amount  to much
manpower  at all.  BITNET  is mostly  a volunteer  network,  if the  unix
community doesn't write software for  themselves they can't expect others
to write it for them. It just  so happens that the VM community wrote all
the software while  the VMS community (with a  couple notable exceptions)
did all the whining about not having VMS versions of popular software and
the unix community did all the pulling away.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: innopac@maine.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"innopac@maine.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:27:59 -0400
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         AKEBABIAN@COLGATEU.BITNET
Subject:      Electronic shelf list

This is in response to queries from Anita Ortman and Giles Martin about closing
the shelflist.  Colgate University (4-year, liberal arts, undergraduate,
private, holdings of about 500,000 in two buildings) closed the paper shelflist
in winter of 1991, about 1 year after bringing up our Innovative system.  We
have kept the shelflist in the Cataloging Dept. because we have not yet
retrospectively barcoded the mulit-copies and -volumes completely.  Although we
in Cataloging rarely use it, the Acquisitions Dept. still does.  We do not make
any updates to the shelflist;  I believe they are marking withdrawals in it.

We have not had any trouble using the system for assigning call numbers or
cutters.  The <t> command after a call number search will display title and
author, which makes cuttering very easy.  It's too bad that there is no command
to <display call numbers> in an index list in the staff mode, which would be
really useful in classifying literary authors, artists, etc.

The duplicate call number reporting works well for us.  There are instances of
duplicate call numbers reported from item records which are not problems, but
these are quick to weed out.  I do not know if it would be a problem if you
were a part of a multi-library consortia which stored all call numbers in item
records.

We did not really have a conversion period:  on Nov. 1, 1991 the Cataloging
Dept. declared the shelflist closed!  The year between bringing up III and the
closing might be considered a conversion period, and it was mainly used to wean
the library staff!  We also attempted to keep track of how much time was spent
filing into the shelflist, refiling cards which were pulled when retrospective
barcoding was done, etc.  The number of clerical and student hours spent
maintaining the shelflist could not be justified (in my opinion) by the
infrequent use it received.  For the Cataloging Dept., it is much more useful
to go directly to the stacks and pull all copies/volumes when questions about
holdings come up, since they will all need to be barcoded anyway!

Hope this helps.  Feel free to contact me directly if you have further
questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ann Kebabian, Head of Cataloging
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346
Voice: (315) 824-7309
Bitnet: akebabian@colgateu
Internet: akebabian@center.colgate.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Envelope-to: INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:45:00 EDT
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         CDIAZ@ALBION.BITNET

Unscribe CCARSON@ALBION.BITNET" INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET
SUBSCRIBE INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET CLAUDIA DIAZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:45:35 EST
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         mahan@SHRSYS.HSLC.ORG
Subject:      Position announcement

This message is cross posted to AUTOCAT, LAW-LIB and COOPCAT.
Cataloger for center city law library with MLS and experience with AACR2,
LC classification, LCSH, MARC formats, OCLC, and an automated system.
Duties: catalog and classify monographs, serials, and AV materials.  Assist
with catalog record maintenance and special projects.
Competitive salary and benefits.  Send resume and salary requirement to:
        Personnel
        Jenkins Law Library
        841 Chestnut St., Ste 1220
        Philadelphia, PA  19107
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
X-Envelope-to: innopac@MAINE.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN"innopac@maine"
X-VMS-Cc: MFERLEY
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:12:00 EDT
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         Margaret Ferley <MFERLEY@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA>
Subject:      Original cataloguing in INNOPAC - rate of production - question

Greetings to all.

Original cataloguing in our library used to be done by drawing up cataloguing
worksheets, which were keyed into UTLAS by a data entry clerk.  With the
arrival of INNOPAC, original cataloguers now enter their own records into the
system and they observe that having to do so has caused their rate of productio
to fall.

Has anyone else had this experience?  What did you do about it?

Margaret Ferley
Serials
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: innopac@maine.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"innopac@maine.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: ME
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:28:36 -0700
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         ORTMAN_A@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU
Subject:      electronic shelflist

I would be extremely interested in hearing from INNOPAC customers
who no longer maintain a paper shelflist.

What was the conversion period like?  How long have you worked from
an electronic shelflist?  Any problems?

Thanks in advance for the info.
Anita Ortman
Head of Database Maintenance
University Libraries
University of Colorado, Boulder
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:52:59 EST
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         Pamela.I.Ploeger@DARTMOUTH.EDU
Subject:      Interlibrary loans

We expect to begin using the Innopac circulation system in June and are
beginning the profiling process.  I would like to hear from libraries which
are satisfied with the procedures they have developed for tracking
interlibrary loan materials on the system.  We have a fairly high volume of
outgoing ILL transactions and under our present circulation system we find it
cumbersome to record exactly where interlibrary loan materials were sent.  I
realize some excellent procedures may not be 100% automated so please be
candid if some successful aspects of your interlibrary loan operation are not
automated.

Thank you.

Pam Ploeger
Circulation Services Librarian
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire
pamela.ploeger@dartmouth.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU