HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: USDGK@VTVM1.BITNET (Greg Kroll)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: subscriber network address not critical anymore?
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:47:53 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, Virginia Tech.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Seems to me that in the past (I don't remember how long ago, but not too
long) it used to be important to LISTSERV which address was used in a
mail header, in the From: tag, to determine whether a command would be
executed or rejected because the user was "unauthorized".  I hope an
example will clairfy.

Let's say I subscribe to an OPEN list that has REVIEW set to private.
Further, let's say my subscription was made with the CMS TELL command,
so the list would contain my BITNET address.

Seems like it used to be I could not send a mail note to a list like
this and use my Internet domain name to REVIEW the list.  Am I right?

Well I just tried it and the REVIEW will work with either address, BITNET
or Internet.

I'm not complaining, I like the way it works (much less confusion for those
of us with workstations), just curious as to when this behavior changed.


--Greg Kroll
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:23:43 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: question regarding FULL (or FULLBSMTP) header option
              20 Nov 1992 10:23:42 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:23:42 EST Greg Kroll <USDGK@VTVM1> said:

>I was wondering why, when I set my  header option for a list to FULL (or
>FULLB), LISTSERV  inserts the  header tag "Newsgroups:"?  This certainly
>cannot mean there is a corresponding usenet newsgroup by that name, does
>it?

No, but LISTSERV has no way to know whether or not there is one. When the
first usenet gateways was written, I was told to please generate that tag
as it is needed by the gateway, so I did.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:53:07 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forcing an F=
              17 Nov 1992 18:05:58 GMT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

You have  to use an exit  for that. I'm  not sure I fully  understand the
problem - you said  F=PUNCH rather than F=MAIL, and I  would think that a
BITNET  user who  explicitly codes  F=PUNCH when  he has  the ability  to
receive Netdata files gets what he deserves. I realize there is presently
no convenient way to prevent mail-only  users from AFD'ing to files which
cannot be  sent via mail,  but I have  found no satisfactory  solution to
this problem so far.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:05:13 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI
              16 Nov 1992 12:51:15 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:51:15 EST Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
said:

>This is  probably reason  enough to peer  the list. If  some way  can be
>determined to split up the SMTP  addresses, so that they are distributed
>across 10  servers located on the  IP backbone. 10*800 has  to be better
>than 1*8000.

The problem  is that there  is no  such way if  all the addresses  end in
domains routed through INTERBIT. And in  fact you will probably find that
the closest host  to all these US subscribers is  in Europe, because EARN
has a "clean" INTERBIT topology  whereas only 2 official INTERBIT's exist
in the US.  This causes your average  EARN node to be  closer to INTERBIT
than your  average CREN  node, and  since the  Internet has  no published
topology you  can easily  end up  with thousands of  US subscribers  on a
european list and there  is nothing you can do about  it: the Internet is
not in the US any more than it is in Europe or in the South Pole.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, Network Systems, Class. 56
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:09:11 -0500
From:         gettes@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject:      Re: ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?)
Comments: cc: Alan Thew <QQ11@liverpool.ac.uk>
              22 Nov 92 16:21:46 -0500. <9211222129.AA01615@Princeton.EDU>

On Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:21:46 -0500 trish@ucc.uwindsor.ca said:
>    In summary, there is no battle here between LISTSERVs.  To suggest
> that there is implies some equality of competition between two or more
> legitimate software packages fighting for a market.  There is only one
> LISTSERV, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to lend credibility
> to software which I hope more and more sites are realizing is unethical
> to use on purely professional grounds.  In short, if you want to
> provide LISTSERV-like services, ask permission to use the name LISTSERV,
> if the author says 'no, use another name', be professional, respect
> the answer, and get another name.  Finally, I replied here because I
> have seen this issue come up a few times over the years and I am still
> amazed by the lack of professionalism on the part of the developers who
> not only use the name 'listserv' when asked not to, but who also flaunt
> it by posting to this list.   My opinion, my perspective.

Trish, in the interests of professionalism and ethics... may I please
share, borrow and use your opinion and perspective? I agree with it!
I would add that if people took 2 minutes to see how users see the world, they
would see users have no idea there is a difference between the listservs and
frankly don't care... I find it to be a gross error in judgement for someone
to develop something and call it listserv, and, in the specific case of the
one developed at Boston University, I am kind of annoyed that the University
from which I graduated allowed this to happen. Ethics never were a big
topic at BU, in my opinion. Ethics and professionalism should be part of the
computer science curriculum (and all others as well).

/mrg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:50:00 EST
Reply-To:     dupuy@cs.columbia.edu
From:         Alexander Dupuy <dupuy@TIEMANN.CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM)
Comments: To: LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
Comments: cc: GERLAND%UBVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

> > This is probably reason enough to peer the list.  If some way can be
> > determined to split up the SMTP addresses, so that they are distributed
> > across 10 servers located on the IP backbone.  10*800 has to be better than
> > 1*8000.

> The problem  is that there  is no  such way if  all the addresses  end in
> domains routed through INTERBIT. And in  fact you will probably find that
> the closest host  to all these US subscribers is  in Europe, because EARN
> has a "clean" INTERBIT topology  whereas only 2 official INTERBIT's exist
> in the US.  This causes your average  EARN node to be  closer to INTERBIT
> than your  average CREN  node, and  since the  Internet has  no published
> topology you  can easily  end up  with thousands of  US subscribers  on a
> european list and there  is nothing you can do about  it: the Internet is
> not in the US any more than it is in Europe or in the South Pole.

10,000 recipients just seems like a bit too much for a mailing list.  Even if
you could split the INTERBIT load up a bit, it would still be a tremendous
waste of resources to be sending all those copies of mail.  Netnews was
designed for exactly these sorts of hugely popular discussion groups, and is
very efficient at getting copies of many messages to thousands of
subscribers.  With 10,000 subscribers, there should be no difficulty getting
enough support to create the newsgroup.

Assuming that roughly 75% of the 8500 non-BITNET subscribers have access to
netnews and are willing to subscribe to NAVIGATE as a newsgroup rather than as
a mailing list, it should be possible to split the discussion group into three
parts gatewayed together, with 2000 subscribers to a BITNET peered LISTSERV,
2000 subscribers to an Internet peered Unix LISTSERV, and the remaining 6500
subscribed to a Usenet newsgroup.

I am curious what the charter for the NAVIGATE discussion group is, for the
list to be so tremendously popular.   If it's for a subject which I can
reasonably justify, I would even be willing to volunteer to coordinate the
Internet side of such a three-way gatewayed discussion group, including
organizing the creation of a Usenet newsgroup and coordinating the Internet
Unix LISTSERV sites.

@alex
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:31:06 EST
From:         "Geert K. Marien" <GKMQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      List Deletion Problem Solved

   We had indeed waited over two weeks  for the lists to be deleted, but
they weren't.   Thanks to  the pointers  from Eric,  and a  little other
detective work,  perhaps, the problem  has been solved and  was probably
related to the WAKEPARM file.

   Thanks folks.

** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
**  Geert K. Marien  :  GKMQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bitnet: GKMQC@CUNYVM)  **
**        ListOwner: AIRLINE, RAILROAD, STAMPS, The INDIA List        **
**    (All contents are my own opinions - unless otherwise stated)    **
** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Indiana University Music Library
X-Acknowledge-To: <PAPAKHI@IUBVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:22:49 EST
From:         "A. Ralph Papakhian" <PAPAKHI@IUBVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?)
              22 Nov 1992 18:09:11 -0500 from <gettes@PRINCETON.EDU>

On Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:09:11 -0500 <gettes@PRINCETON.EDU> said:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:21:46 -0500 trish@ucc.uwindsor.ca said:
>>    In summary, there is no battle here between LISTSERVs.  To suggest
>> that there is implies some equality of competition between two or more
>> legitimate software packages fighting for a market.  There is only one
>> LISTSERV, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to lend credibility
>> to software which I hope more and more sites are realizing is unethical
>> to use on purely professional grounds.  In short, if you want to
>> provide LISTSERV-like services, ask permission to use the name LISTSERV,
>> if the author says 'no, use another name', be professional, respect
>> the answer, and get another name.  Finally, I replied here because I
>> have seen this issue come up a few times over the years and I am still
>> amazed by the lack of professionalism on the part of the developers who
>> not only use the name 'listserv' when asked not to, but who also flaunt
>> it by posting to this list.   My opinion, my perspective.
>
>Trish, in the interests of professionalism and ethics... may I please
>share, borrow and use your opinion and perspective? I agree with it!
>I would add that if people took 2 minutes to see how users see the world, they
>would see users have no idea there is a difference between the listservs and
>frankly don't care... I find it to be a gross error in judgement for someone
>to develop something and call it listserv, and, in the specific case of the
>one developed at Boston University, I am kind of annoyed that the University
>from which I graduated allowed this to happen. Ethics never were a big
>topic at BU, in my opinion. Ethics and professionalism should be part of the
>computer science curriculum (and all others as well).
>
>/mrg

For what it's worth, I would agree as well. I also observe
that the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) has now
also advertized its own "listserv" which is (mostly) of the
non-Eric Thomas kind.  So now a large number of individuals
in that coaltion are equally confused by the meaning of
"listserv."  That's particularly alarming to me since something
called the CNI should be making these distinctions clear and
should be educating the coalition partners likewise.

*GO*   Always cordially,
*!!*   A. Ralph Papakhian, Music Library (Co-Listowner for MLA-L@IUBVM)
*IU*   Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
       (812) 855-2970  papakhi@iubvm.bitnet papakhi@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:54:09 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?
              23 Nov 1992 08:42:06 NFT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:42:06 NFT Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12> said:

>I see the point  in both cases - the name  "Revised LISTSERV" comes from
>the fact that there  used to be (before my time  :) another LISTSERV (at
>BITNIC?) that  had the right idea,  but Eric improved it  much more with
>his  new server,  so he  called it  "Revised." So,  the _name_  LISTSERV
>existed before Revised Listserv.

Maybe I  should clarify  here. The  reason the thing  we now  call BITNET
LISTSERV  was initially  dubbed  "Revised LISTSERV"  is, precisely,  that
there was another  program called LISTSERV; in fact, there  were two, the
"BITNIC LISTSERV" and the "NCSUVM LISTSERV". The reason I did not call my
program XYZSERV  and, indeed, the  reason I wrote it  at all is  that the
people in charge of the original LISTSERV were spending little or no time
improving it due to having other things to do. There was no compatibility
issue since the original LISTSERV did  not accept commands at all, all it
did was receive messages  and send them to lists of  people, ie about the
functionality  of a  SMTP exploder  (shortly after  Revised LISTSERV  was
released, a  new version of the  original LISTSERV with 3-4  commands was
written but it was never released - it only ran at the developer's site).
The  server's helpfiles  made  it  clear that  this  was different  code,
explained what was new and described  how one could interface the 3 types
of servers without creating loops. Nobody ever complained to me about the
ambiguity of the documentation, nor did anyone ask me to rename my server
to something else.

All these  historical documents  were removed  a few  years later  as the
original LISTSERV's  had disappeared  completely and user  support people
complained that it confused their users.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:05:21 EST
From:         Jim Gerland - Network User Support <GERLAND@UBVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Need help with EXPLODE and Internet subscribers

I have made a rather large error in judgement.

I have setup a list called NAVIGATE which now has 10,467 subscribers and
my machine can't handle that.

I asked LISTSERV to EDPLODE NAVIGATE (BEST 10 and it found only 960
subscribers it would suggest be moved:

//* Peer      Subscribers
//* ----      -----------
//* UNAMVM1       22
//* CMUVM         15
//* INDYCMS      149
//* MCGILL1      132
//* YORKVM1       41
//* PSUVM        313
//* UAFSYSB      157
//* QUCDN         30
//* UALTAVM       41
//* ARIZVM1       60

Does anyone know a way to ask LISTSERV to recognize where the best
sites are for moving the Internet subscribers that aren't in BITEARN
NODES?  I'm sure that most of the 10,000 subscribers don't really
belong on my machine, since LISTSERV thinks I only have 810  local
subscribers.

Here's the count by country:

*  Country        Subscribers
*  -------        -----------
*  Argentina          7
*  Australia        234
*  Austria            7
*  Belgium            9
*  Brazil           119
*  Canada           697
*  Chile             14
*  Columbia           1
*  ??? (CU)           1
*  Denmark            6
*  Ecuador            1
*  ??? (EE)          21
*  Finland           11
*  France            27
*  Germany           36
*  Great Britain    171
*  Hongkong          32
*  Hungary            1
*  Iceland            1
*  India              3
*  Ireland            5
*  Israel            33
*  Italy             12
*  Japan             20
*  Korea              5
*  Malaysia           2
*  Mexico            19
*  Netherlands       41
*  New Zealand       10
*  Norway            11
*  Peru               1
*  Poland             1
*  Portugal           1
*  Saudi-Arabia       3
*  Singapore          8
*  Spain             18
*  Sweden            19
*  Switzerland       22
*  ??? (SI)           1
*  Taiwan             7
*  ??? (TH)           1
*  USA             8596
*  USSR               4
*  ??? (VE)          20
*  Yugoslavia         3
*  ??? (ZA)           1
*  ???               69
*
* Total number of "concealed" subscribers:       135
* Total number of users subscribed to the list:10332  (non-"concealed" only)
* Total number of countries represented:          47  (non-"concealed" only)
* Total number of local node users on the list:  810  (non-"concealed" only)


Jim Gerland  - Consultant, Network User Support           University at Buffalo
Academic Services, Computing & Information Technology     Buffalo, NY 14260
716.645.3557 Work                                         716.645.3734 FAX
gerland@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu                              gerland@ubvms.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Guelph; Guelph, Ont., Canada; N1G 2W1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:08:19 EDT
From:         Gerrit Bos <SOFGBOS@VM.UOGUELPH.CA>
Subject:      Error 0000002B

I've done a search at UGA on LSTSRV-L on the following error (or anything
similar) with no results.
LISTSERV is pretty vanilla, except forwarding, and we're up to date
on LSV$FORW EXEC (the hard way :-)
Where do I find the error, or what caused it?  Spool file is no longer.
TIA

Error occurred while processing file 2513 from LISTSERV@UOGUELPH:

  Error reading or decoding spool file (see traceback).

Error traceback follows
-----------------------
>>> Error X'0000002B' opening incoming spool file <<<
 -> Severity: Error
 -> Facility: Generic error codes
 -> Abstract: Overflow/buffer too small

Gerrit Bos   Systems Analyst, Data Comm., Comp. & Comm. Services, U. of Guelph
             Guelph ON Canada N1G 2W1 Ph:(519)824-4120 x3489 Fax:(519)763-1620
   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
"Poetry makes Nothing HAPPEN."  W.H. Auden.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: USTS034@UABDPO.BITNET (Landy Manderson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: still a bug with 17e?
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:35:44 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:47:15 EDT Helen P. Nulty said:
>The problem is specific to MUSIC (it works fine from CMS).  From MUSIC,
>if I add F=MAIL to the GET request the file is delivered properly.
>Before 17e we did not have to do this.  We made modifications
>to our RSCS to support our MUSIC node, SLUMUS, all of which worked
>before 17e.  Below is a sample of the UNDELIVERABLE MAIL.

Is it possible that your modifications (or MUSIC) are expecting the
NETDATA tags to be in a particular order?  Eric is now generating the
same tagdata as a CMS SENDFILE, but it is not in the same order.  If
something on your end is expecting the 4th and 5th tagdata to always be
destination node and userid (instead of checking the tagdata keys), then
it would be confused by the new LISTSERV output.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:07:48 CST
From:         THE GAR <GLWARNER@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      Deleting Files

What is the "proper" way to delete files from a filelist?  I have
tried just deleting their entry on the filelist, but it rejects
because the file is still there.  If I manually delete the 000000002
LISTNAME file, does it mess things up?

Thanks


 /++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
!  Later        +   Systems Programmer                                 !
!  Gary Warner  +   Samford University Computer Services               !
!               +   II TIMOTHY 2:15                                    !
 \+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:22:31 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Error 0000002B
              19 Nov 1992 11:08:19 EDT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:08:19 EDT Gerrit Bos <SOFGBOS@VM.UOGUELPH.CA>
said:

>Error occurred while processing file 2513 from LISTSERV@UOGUELPH:
>
>  Error reading or decoding spool file (see traceback).
>
>Error traceback follows
>-----------------------
>>>> Error X'0000002B' opening incoming spool file <<<
> -> Severity: Error
> -> Facility: Generic error codes
> -> Abstract: Overflow/buffer too small

This is  a very exotic  error, which normally  happens with VAFP  or 3800
print files which have spool records  larger than a spool block. LISTSERV
doesn't support that, because it  requires special handling and because I
can't quite figure what  LISTSERV would do with a 3800  print file in its
reader :-) The file was probably transferred to the postmaster.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:54:47 EST
Reply-To:     "Geert K. Marien" <GKMQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
From:         "Geert K. Marien" <GKMQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Deleting a List

Hello,

   Once again, I seek  some advice.  I have moved 3  lists from one node
to another.  I did  not use the MOVE command to  move the subscribers (I
had some big  changes to make so it  was easier to just do  them and put
the new list in).

   The problem  is that the  old lists  were deleted (erased  from disk,
files and all) but they still show up in the GLOBAL file.

   Would someone please (via private mail, if you like) tell us:

      1)  Has anyone had this problem before (under 1.7d or e)
      2)  What can I do to get out of this situation?

   I do know what  I thought was the correct thing to  do, and I believe
it was done, so that's why I am now asking all of you.

   If it  seems to  be of interest  to all, and  people discuss  this in
private with me  and not on the  list, I will be happy  to summarize the
results.

   Thanks.

** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
**  Geert K. Marien  :  GKMQC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bitnet: GKMQC@CUNYVM)  **
**        ListOwner: AIRLINE, RAILROAD, STAMPS, The INDIA List        **
**    (All contents are my own opinions - unless otherwise stated)    **
** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
From: CSMSPCN@UCLAMVS.BITNET (Pete Nielsen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: Changes from release 1.7d to 1.7e
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

We have some lists locally which had entries such as:

address "name, dept"

1.7e - has changed the way such addresses are seen by UCLAMail
       (an MVS mailer). EG: "\"name, dept \"" <address>

1.7e is doing a correct 822 thing.  So the solution appears to
be to remove the "'s in any list entries that you may have.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Organization: Samford University Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:03:45 CST
From:         THE GAR <GLWARNER@SAMFORD.BITNET>

What do I have to do to make a List LDBASE searchable?


 /++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
!  Later        +   Systems Programmer                                 !
!  Gary Warner  +   Samford University Computer Services               !
!               +   II TIMOTHY 2:15                                    !
 \+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU