Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!BITNIC!ROBINSON
From: ROBINSON@BITNIC.BITNET (Andrew T. Robinson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: A new LISTSERV
Message-ID: <POLICY-L%90021118204354@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:13:30 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 11
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Your subject -- Re: Technical direction vs. Services

My primary gripe with the current LISTSERV concept is that it requires
"smart" file distribution--routing over routing.  You have a topology
of LISTSERVs which is constrained by the topology of the real network.

If the LISTSERV "network" could better approximate the real topology of
the network (meaning it would have to run on other than IBM VM systems),
the "smart routing" could be eliminated and each node's routing tables
could be used instead.  Unfortunately, the only way to a non-VM
implementation of LISTSERV is by a line-by-line analysis of the code.

Andy