Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!TAMVM1.BITNET!X230GV From: X230GV@TAMVM1.BITNET.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: INFO-VAX, VAX-KIDS, NET-KIDS ? Message-ID: <8704300518.AA01587@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 21:20:33 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8704300518.AA01587 Posted: Tue Apr 28 21:20:33 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 02:39:36 EDT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 47 > I think some people don't like the info-vax on ARPA because they >cannot contribute; the bitnet sub-distributor don't accept contributions. I >have been asked for forwarding messages to info-vax by several users who >have no access to ARPAnet; for example, some VAXs that run JNET. I think this is certainly true, but I don't understand why it's necessary. Bitnet listservs can have peers so that there are many redistribution sites all over the net, thus cutting down on total net traffic. A subscriber is automatically assigned to the nearest listserv which carries the list in question. In addition, you can submit to any of those listservs (usually the nearest one, of course). There is no problem here. Conceptually there is no difference with one of the servers being on ARPAnet; the only problem is that the server on ARPAnet apparently echoes messages back to the sender. Thus, if someone submitted to info-vax@tamvm1 (my home node), the message would get sent to subscribers here and also to some peer servers. If one of those was info-vax@sri-kl.arpa, it would send the message there. The arpa server would send it back to the Bitnet servers, and it would get rebroadcast . . . you see how it goes. This would be simple to fix. Either set up the ARPA server not to echo to the sender (the usual Bitnet policy) or, if that's not acceptable, set it up not to echo IF the sender is listserv@somenode.bitnet. Then the Bitnet servers could be set up to accept submissions from everyone, and we'd have it a lot easier over here. Are there any problems with this that I'm not aware of? I'd really like to hear from the list managers about this. On the question of separate lists for Bitnet or novices: I don't think it would work. With a separate Bitnet list, most people would subscribe to both (``Wouldn't want to miss some juicy tidbit on the other side!''), and in addition most questions would be submitted to both (``Wouldn't want to miss out on one of the experts on the other side!''). This would only increase traffic and duplications. For the novice list, it's even more clear cut. What experts would subscribe to answer the questions? Not many. But most of the novice's questions would be answerable by other novices, right? Don't count on it, but even if that's true, many novices would send to the expert's list also (``No novice will know this one; I'd better ask the big guys''). The novice list would almost certainly die. As much as I hate slogging through the voluminous INFO-VAX mail every morning, I think we should keep it as it is (albeit with a little equalization across the gateway). Regards, Glenn Vanderburg