Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!MAINTCMS From: MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l Subject: Re: Format of linkfail tag Message-ID: Date: 28 Feb 90 15:05:17 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Lines: 31 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:10:07 EST from On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:10:07 EST Michael R. Gettes said: >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. My (full node) updates that I was sending to the update server were always being failed for this. I fixed it by coding (using PUCC as an example): linkfail.(Shift Supervisor Operations) noid@pucc ((609) 258-6014) If all the rest of you will also code "noid" maybe they'll get the message. As far as meeting the requirements of the new format for BITEARN NODES, the phone number format is wrong. It must be changed to a format without parenthesis.