Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!psuvax1!psuvm!IVORY!MWH
From: mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Re: Format of linkfail tag
Message-ID: <9002281351.AA25129@educom.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 90 13:51:10 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 22
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Comments: To: NODMGT-L%BITNIC@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
In-Reply-To:  ; from "Michael R. Gettes" at Feb 27, 90 8:10 pm

>
> 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.

Don't know that it was a 'unilateral decision.' We interpreted (possibly,
with error) that the contact, inforep, linkfail, postmast, ...
tags should use the first form. Also, it is defined as such in
the new BITEARN NODES definition.

If this is breaking any net applications out there, please let us know.

Mike Hrybyk