Path: utzoo!utgpu!ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca!NDSUVM1!NETNWS-L Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 11:27:00 EST Reply-To: NETNWS-L Netnews List Sender: NETNWS-L Netnews List From: Linda Littleton Subject: Re: Unix folks unhappy about bit groups X-cc: nntp-managers@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu To: UofToronto LAN redistribution References: david AT MS.UKY.EDU -- Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:03:54 EST Message-ID: <90Feb13.200052est.58178@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.netnws-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack wrote: >NNTP-people ... the NETNWS-L people have started talking about gatewaying >problems 'tween "us" and "them" because Erik contacted Laura recently. My name is Linda and I haven't heard anything from Erik. I wrote to him just a few days ago. Also have been waiting about a week to be added to nntp-managers list with no success. I might as well repeat here what I wrote to Erik. We need to get the people on our two lists talking to each other. Here is what I wrote him: >As the person who is largely responsible for Listserv discussions >being fed to Netnews, I am quite surprised to learn that there is >discussion and controversy over the bit groups. A system administrator >on one of our local systems sent me some nntp managers discussion >dated between 11/25/89 and 12/6/89, and I read it with somewhat of >the feeling of catching people talking about me behind my back. > >Anyhow, let me introduce myself. I've written a VM/CMS implementation >of Netnews that can receive feeds either over Bitnet or via NNTP. >The NNTP part was written by Andy Hooper - HOOPER@QUCDN.bitnet. My >implementation replaces the one by Bill Verity (WHV@psuvm.psu.edu). >The Netnews code allows any site running it to gateway a Listserv list >into Netnews, although most of the gatewaying (125 groups or so) is >done by psuvm. The return Netnews-to-Listserv gateway is done by >setting up each bit group as moderated, and the posting software >sends the posting directly to the moderator, which is just a list >handler. > >I am surprised to hear that non-IBM sites are receiving and are >interested in the bit groups. I had thought that they were just >being circulated among IBM bitnet sites. I don't know why non-IBM >folks would even be interested in much of the stuff there. > >I wasn't involved in original decisions about group naming, but >imagine a new hierarchy (bit) was picked to indicate that these were >something separate that should just be circulated among bitnet sites. >Personally I think the bit.listserv is excessive and would rather >see a prefix like "lsv". > >It is important to the bitnet sites to have the Listserv list name >be in the Netnews group name. Otherwise it would be difficult to >know where each list was being gatewayed. Many VM sites are trying >to encourage their users to read these lists via Netnews rather than >Listserv to cut down on the amount of mail space used for this stuff. > >Our Netnews implementation just hit the VM "market" and from the looks >of things it is going to take off. About 5 sites per day have been >requesting the software. Many of them are initially attracted by >bit.all capabilities, but most get a Usenet feed too. Since each >site has the ability to gateway whatever Listserv lists they want, >I believe we are going to see a big increase there. > >I am very willing to work with you on this. Gatewaying the Listserv >lists to Usenet groups is a current capability (for example, we put >the minix-l list into comp.os.minix), though it can be confusing for >bitnet people to know what's what. Hmm, maybe I could get our news >reading software to handle that. All sorts of things are possible. > >Let's talk. Back to David: >I suggest more interaction between the two groups. Neither group >fully understands what the other does .. I wish I had more time to help >improve the understanding on each side of the fence but I just don't. It's even more complicated than that. I understand what PSU VM Netnews does. I don't know what PUCC VM Netnews does and don't know all that much about Listserv. >BTW, Laura, "handling a Message-ID: properly" means > ****NO**** mangling of the contents >and DO ****NOT**** lose the contents PSU Netnews does not mangle message-ids. If an incoming article has a message-id, that message-id is left intact. If it does not have a message-id, then, if the article is mail from a Listserv list, a message-id is created from the "From" and "Date" lines of the article (so that any place running PSU Netnews would create the same msgid); if it is not Listserv mail, the article is rejected.