mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/02/90)
Two copies of BITNET LINKS posted contained errors (ROOT as the via for CUNYVM instead of (root), and a pair of duplicate nodenumbers). They have been corrected, and the file has been re-stored on LISTSERV. Please discard the earlier 2 copies of the LINKS file. The third one is correct. I know that this may cause confusion, so please exercise special care when receiving the file. We apologize for the mistake, and have fixed two procedural bugs that caused the problem. Mike Hrybyk BITNIC
POSTMAST@TECMTYVM.BITNET (Juan M. Courcoul) (02/03/90)
Being that the BITNET NODELST file available on all NETSERVs is really the BITNET LINKS file, can we assume that the proper steps have been taken to store the correct version on the NETSERVs ? I recall that Ulrich Giese had found the first version stored to be in error, lacking the GULFNET nodes. Thanks, Juan Courcoul Mexico Netserv Controller
U001213@HNYKUN11.BITNET (Hans-Ulrich Giese) (02/05/90)
On Fri, 2 Feb 90 20:40:56 EDT Juan M. Courcoul said: >Being that the BITNET NODELST file available on all NETSERVs is really the >BITNET LINKS file, can we assume that the proper steps have been taken to >store the correct version on the NETSERVs ? I recall that Ulrich Giese had >found the first version stored to be in error, lacking the GULFNET nodes. juan, i'm in direct contact with BITNIC. i hope the problems with BITNET NODELST will be solved today (i.e. monday). -ulrich- p.s.: please note that the updates for BITEARN NODES (9002) will be distributed as soon as the mentioned problems are solved (i hope this evening).
mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/05/90)
A corrected BITNET NODELST was also placed on NETSERV last Friday. I apologize for the confusion. Mike