Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:28:34 EDT
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: My experiences with LISTEARN
Comments: To: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Comments: cc: Christina Blanxer <ZCOCBF01@EBCESCA1.BITNET>,
              "Listearn master coordination" <LMC-L@FRORS13.BITNET>

On Wed, 02 Sep 92 09:29:13 EDT you said:
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:51:35 EDT you said:
>>searching the archives?)  EB0UB011 is being turned off RSN.
>>It is now a LISTEARN 1.3 site.
>
>EB0UB011 has been a LISTEARN site for several years. However,
>I understand they are removing that site, replacing it with
>LISTSERV@EBCESCA1. EB0UB011 is not being maintained anymore,
>and the list owners were contacted by Christina Blanxer to
>remove their peers from this site.
True.  What's the point?
>
>>  - I was not able to issue what I know as GET BITNCLST FILELIST (CTL
>
>I use this command daily. How else can we maintain filelists ? :)
That was my question!
>EB0UB011 is as I said, not maintained anymore - they do not have any
>of the PTF shipments applied since LISTEARN 1.3 was released more
>than six months ago. I understand they do not wish to define the

>source and update disks since this node will be terminated altogether.
>
>>can update it and store it back on the LISTEARN.  MAybe (CTL was added
>>after the split, but that's not my problem, and I didn't want to
>
>My guess is that the server did not recognise you as someone
>privildged enough to obtain the filelist.
Then why didn't it tell me that????  If CTL was an invalid option for
me, it should say so, not just blindly ignore it, and do something else.
And, the FILELIST was associated with a list, for which I'm a list owner,
which should give me the correct access.
>
>> - GET listname defaults to the GLOBAL on LISTEARN, and heaven help me
>>guess the option necessary to GET only the local copy of a peered list.
>
>True - since 09/01/91 GET listname defaults to GLOBAL on LISTEARN.
So how do you stop that BAD behavior?
>
>>with a confidential=yes.  It worked.  I got on another account and
>>issued a TELL LISTSERV AT EB0UB011 LIST, and APPLICAT was gone from the
>
>These are due to missing PTFs at EB0UB011. Please issue:
>
>   GET LST13PTF SUMMARY
>
>to LISTSERV@FRORS12.BITNET for a complete list of PTFs, which include
>corrections and major enhancements such as file splitting, complex-id
>support, internet-internet mapping and more.
And why as a general owner of a list should I have to do this?
>
>> - During the process, I attempt to EXPLODE APPLICAT (WITHOUT EB0UB011
>>PREFER UGA FOR UGA.  The move file looked great.  I updated the password
>>and sent it in.  LISTSERV@EB0UB011 accepted it and sent off the info
>>to DEARN and HEARN for processing.  DEARN and HEARN sent nice little
>
>DEARN and HEARN for which you did not complain, are also LISTEARN
>servers. However, they have most PTFs installed. Please make a distinction
>between an individual server and all 44 LISTEARN servers.
I didn't say HEARN and HEARN weren't LISTEARN.  As a consumer, it doesn't
matter to me.  EB0UB011 was broken, therefore LISTEARN was broken.
Go talk to your class G customers.  It doesn't matter why it was broke,
it was broke.  Why are we expecting general owners for be omniscient?
>
>Large public flames are usually not the best behaviour. If you had
>contacted any EARN employee, we could have either corrected the problem
>perhaps by creating a PTF (in this case, I don't think any new PTFs are
>needed), or tried to work out something with the ostmaster of EB0UB011
>about this ill-maintained server.
Given my experience, and attitude, it was hardly a flame!

>
>The questions/answers forum for LISTEARN issues is usually the
>LSTERN-L@FRMOP11.BITNET discussion list. I have no problems discussing
>them here, provided the list owner is not getting too upset with us :)
Which is why I copied LSTERN-L.  I sent it to LSTSRV-L because other
LISTSERV owners may have to put up with the same poor level of service
in the future, and I thought they should be warned.  Especially
if they have to help get peers off EB0UB011.  It also shows that the
problems that Eric warned about when the split occurred have come to
pass, as if we doubted it.

>
>Finally, we are in the process of updating the documentation, and it should
>be available in the near future.   Regards, -turgut
Thanks.  I was really surprised by this, because I was under the
impression that LISTEARN's documentation was a major commitment
by EARN.
/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU