Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!pilot.njin.net!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!GETTES
From: GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Re: Format of linkfail tag
Message-ID: <NODMGT-L%90022720165126@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 28 Feb 90 01:10:07 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems
Lines: 20
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:06:00 EST from <RAF@NIHCU.BITNET>

On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:06:00 EST Roger Fajman said:
>I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral
>decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to
>
>      (real_name) userid@node (phone number)
>
>instead of the traditional
>
>      (firstname lastname) (fullphone#)
>
>There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address:
>it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down.

This is to come in line with the new format of BITEARN NODES.
I do agree that this needed to be done. However, I do have some
question about the userid@node that is applied and I do wish
that notification to the network about such matters was more
prevelant but apparently this is a secondary consideration.

/mrg