toth@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US (Joseph G. Toth Jr.) (06/09/89)
Some time ago I was able to access some files from this listserv. However, for the last couple of months, there has been no response (AT ALL). No file transfers... No bounce messages... NOTHING. This is also true of kermsrv@CUVMA and netserv@BITNIC. Info: I am located on a node on USENET, so I guess that the files must go through a gateway. If I mis-spell the node name, I do get a bounce about host not known. My guess is that the bounce is always from the USENET side. I mail with the command; 'mail -v uunet\!brownvm.BITNET\!listserv' The mailer informs me that thhe message was sent ok. Questions: Is this a problem with the USENET/BITNET gateway? Destination address on BITNET?? Return Address to USENET??? What else could it be???? Are there Download limits placed on users? Are there Upload requirements that allow further downloads? Could the APPLE2-L node post a monthly report regarding access levels and bounced requests to comp.sys.apple or comp.binaries.apple2? Is there some other means of knowing whether my requests are lost before getting to APPLE2-L, or lost on the return trip? Or simply ignored by the servers?? -- ------------------------------------------------+--------------------- Maybe I shouldn't have done it, sarcasm is so | Joseph G. Toth Jr. seldom understood. Don't FLAME on me, please. | uunet!tellab5!toth
JDA@NIHCU.BITNET (Doug Ashbrook) (06/09/89)
> Could the APPLE2-L node post a monthly report regarding access levels > and bounced requests to comp.sys.apple or comp.binaries.apple2? I am opposed to do this. There is enough traffic on the net already. -------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Douglas Ashbrook (301) 496-5181 BITNET: JDA@NIHCU <-- preferred address INTERNET: JDA@CU.NIH.GOV or jda%nihcu.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu National Institutes of Health, Computer Center, Bethesda, MD 20892 -+- Remember. If some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some MS-DOS, JUST SAY NO!
toth@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US (Joseph G. Toth Jr.) (06/10/89)
In article <8906090918.aa19688@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, JDA@NIHCU.BITNET (Doug Ashbrook) writes: > > Could the APPLE2-L node post a monthly report regarding access levels > > and bounced requests to comp.sys.apple or comp.binaries.apple2? > > I am opposed to do this. There is enough traffic on the net already. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > J. Douglas Ashbrook [remainder of sig deleted] Again, I have one statement pulled out of a posting with a response that is totally inapropriate regarding the concept of the original posting. This issue is not up for discussion or voting until the moderators of the APPLE2-L listserv make it so. The original posting was aimed at those moderators to see if they might think it a worthy idea. I am not talking about a LARGE report. As an example; It could contain one line totals for the month of a) files requested b) transfers sent where the message bounced. c) number of different users making requests. It would also be nice to have a list of; a) the return address used for transfers that bounced b) the number of bounces for that requester. If the network and all its gateways are working properly, the report shouldn't be more than a few lines any month. If the report gets large, some people might wake up to a general problem and fix it. A report with this information might actually help those of us who lose contact with a net node isolate where the problem is. I posted this to the net news since I can't be sure that my email would make it to the moderators at APPLE2-L. _____ The following is not meant as a flame (nor was the preceeding). Speaking of 'enough traffic on the net already', we could probably do without the group 'alt.flame' ( a plethora of slimy notes, responses, responsese to responses, ad nauseum ) that serves no useful purpose whatsoever. If the people really need to vent there frustrations, they should email directly, not waste the net bandwith an our disk space. -- ------------------------------------------------+--------------------- Maybe I shouldn't have done it, sarcasm is so | Joseph G. Toth Jr. seldom understood. Don't FLAME on me, please. | uunet!tellab5!toth
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/11/89)
>Some time ago I was able to access some files from this listserv. Remarkable, so far as I know UUCP confuses LISTSERV's to the point of uniform failure to reply properly to email requests. >However, for the last couple of months, there has been no response (AT ALL). >No file transfers... No bounce messages... NOTHING. > >This is also true of kermsrv@CUVMA and netserv@BITNIC. Three different servers, written (and supported) by three different people (ergo, not some LISTSERV idiosyncracy). The problem is UUCP which generally fails to send bounced mail messages to anyone (individual nodes MAY bounce mail that reaches them but OFTEN the return path isn't legal and the bounce simply bounces back). Postmaster@PSUVAX1.UUCP/BITNET (the gateway) doesn't answer anyone's mail (even if addressed by name to his personal account -- found in the BITNET nodentry files) - even mail from other postmasters. PSUVAX1 has MANY peculiarities (better than no gateway at all, I suppose) -- munging mail from LISTSERV's being only one of them. A substantail fraction of mail from UUCP sites arrives at BITNET with an illegal return address. LISTSERV (and the other robots) haven't a chance in such instances. There is hope: New LISTSERV software is coming this summer (perhaps it'll be 'smarter' and answer at least some UUCP mail requests) Some BITNET sites are beta-testing 'smarter' gateway software that should greatly reduce the occurance of 'unknown host' errors (that one's 'vaporware' because I've been hearing "coming soon" for nearly a year now). > I mail with the command; 'mail -v uunet\!brownvm.BITNET\!listserv' > The mailer informs me that thhe message was sent ok. Brown is in the process of opening their own Internet gateway. There's a chance that the combination of upgraded LISTSERV software, plus their own gate will permit return mail via uunet.uu.net (never know until you try -- say in September). > Is this a problem with the USENET/BITNET gateway? Problems are LEGION > Destination address on BITNET?? The mail usually will arrive, it's the return address that's a problem > Return Address to USENET??? Often NOT a legal address, and LISTSERV seems to have response problems of its own. > Are there Download limits placed on users? NO > Are there Upload requirements that allow further downloads? NO > > Could the APPLE2-L node post a monthly report regarding access levels > and bounced requests to comp.sys.apple or comp.binaries.apple2? What would be the point? > Is there some other means of knowing whether my requests are lost > before getting to APPLE2-L, or lost on the return trip? > Or simply ignored by the servers?? Lost on the return trip. Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/11/89)
>This issue is not up for discussion or voting until the moderators of >the APPLE2-L listserv make it so. Just so things don't appear TOO anonymous, Chris Chung <Chris@BrownVM.Bitnet> and I <Sewall@UConnVM.Bitnet> co-own Apple2-L and Paul Nakada <Nakada@HUSC4.Bitnet> or <Nakada@HUSC7.Harvard.Edu> handles the coordination with comp.binaries.apple2. We welcome discussion (and opinions); as to voting - you tend to get from volunteers what volunteers are willing to provide (or as President Lincoln once said, "There are 12 Ayes, and one nay; the nays have it." :). >The original posting was aimed at those moderators to see if they might >think it a worthy idea. I am not talking about a LARGE report. I wonder if we can arrange for you to manage a list (any list) for awhile, it's LARGER than you think. >As an example; > It could contain one line totals for the month of > a) files requested > b) transfers sent where the message bounced. > c) number of different users making requests. That much sounds reasonable; however, the problem here is LISTSERV collects stats on requests for the server not the individual lists (the stats are there for the maintainer of the server who is more interested in how busy the whole system is rather than how busy some particular list is). > It would also be nice to have a list of; > a) the return address used for transfers that bounced > b) the number of bounces for that requester. Suddenly, the report grows VERY large (at least for APPLe2-L) AND the report would be incomplete because lots of requests that go unfilled do not result in bounced mail (the UUCP gateway to BITNET almost never bounces anything, even gross typo's of host names). >If the network and all its gateways are working properly, the report >shouldn't be more than a few lines any month. There may be a nanosecond or two during the year when these conditions prevail. The typical mailing of APPLE2-L posts generates 5 to 10 'bounces' to perfectly valid hosts, usually because of traffic loads at the gateways. >If the report gets large, some people might wake up to a general >problem and fix it. I haven't counted the lines in even BITNET's list of lists lately (according to InfoWorld, all feeds of USENET news total approximately 3 Mbytes per day), but list volume alone is HUGE. There are known bottlenecks and problems, and lots of talent is working to resolve them. Of course, LOTS more $$$$ would help (any of you taxpayers ready to write your Congresspersons DEMANDING a tax increase to improve net services -- among others?). >A report with this information might actually help those of us who >lose contact with a net node isolate where the problem is. I rather doubt that a general report would uncover many problems that aren't already known. 'cunyvm.cuny.edu' is a seriously overloaded gateway (hardly unknown to the gatemaster) as was 'wiscvm.wisc.edu' before it (they couldn't maintain the load with the resources available and threw in the proverbial towel). Efforts (some of which actually are improving things and others which appear clever if not as obviously helpful) are being made to improve service (often accomplished by unseen volunteers using smoke and mirrors in the absence of money for more hardware and systems programmers). >I posted this to the net news since I can't be sure that my email would >make it to the moderators at APPLE2-L. Kind of makes my point, I think. Why the lack of confidence? Why no confidence that if the mail didn't make it, you'd surely receive a 'mail not delivered' message :-) ? 'Course Chris and I DO take some time off in the summer time (I'm not even on the 'official' payroll from 1 Jun until 1 Sep). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)