Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!STANFORD!GA.JRG From: GA.JRG@STANFORD.BITNET (June Genis) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: Ahem, etc. Message-ID: Date: 17 Jan 90 19:55:10 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 21 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway REPLY TO 01/17/90 02:04 FROM POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET "Discussion about BITNET policies": Re: Ahem, etc. >From: "Michael R. Gettes" >A ROUTTAB tag should be defined for each node entry. I believe this has been >accepted as a requirement for BITEARN NODES. Michael, how were these supposed to get added and how are people supposed to notice if they're missing? Our techrep mentioned to me last week that he has still never gotten any mail addressed specifically to techreps on this whole conversion to NETSERV based tools. He does not subscribe personally to this list or NODMGT-L nor is there any reason for the NIC to rpresume that all techreps are on this list unless they are insuring that fact with a monthly verification. If there are specific actions that techreps have to take to make this whole thing work a mailing should have been made to all techreps a long time ago telling them what. Given the confusion they should probably also be sent monthly status reports as well. /June To: POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET