Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ptsfa!amdahl!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry F Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: cunbatch and news version 2.11
Message-ID: <241@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Dec-86 23:55:54 EST
Article-I.D.: oliveb.241
Posted: Thu Dec  4 23:55:54 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Dec-86 06:20:44 EST
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 29
Keywords: cunbatch rnews 2.11
Summary: cunbatch is not dead
Xref: mnetor news.admin:60 news.software.b:77

Version 2.11 of the news software has the ability for rnews to recognize
several forms of batching and implement the necessary unpacking.

I have seen a lot of mail traffic lately under the general heading of

    "I have 2.11 installed so I can switch to rnews instead of cunbatch"
or
    "Do you have 2.11 installed and can I switch to rnews instead of
    cunbatch"

I leave it to the news gurus to correct me if I am wrong but there is no
advantage to sending compressed batches to remote!rnews instead of
remote!cunbatch.

The only advantage to receiving rnews instead of cunbatch is that you
don't have to add cunbatch to the list of allowed UUCP commands.  For
some versions of UUCP the list of commands is compiled into the code
and if a site doesn't have source this can be a problem.   Frequently
the list of commands already includes "rnews" or some less important
command (finger?) can be patched to be "rnews".  Having to patch in
"cunbatch" just makes this more difficult especially as "cunbatch" is a
longer string than any of the existing commands.  It was for these sites
that the built in interpretation of batching by rnews was added. 

Sending all news to "rnews" regardless of format may be cleaner but
it is not something to get excited about.  I just wanted to keep someone
from sleepless nights worrying about converting to the new format. :-)

				Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC