[bit.listserv.info-gcg] Internet vrs. Bitnet

clark@MSHRI.UTORONTO.CA (02/10/90)

        At present our institution in an Internet node, but we are thinking
about becoming a Bitnet node as well. The major reason for this would be to
give Bitnet people easier access to us, since we already have pretty easy
access to Bitnet (we just have to tack the domain name .bitnet onto the end
of the address).

        I'm hoping to get some input from Bitnet people to see if this is
worth our while. Specifically, I would like to know how difficult it is to
access Internet from Bitnet, and would particularly like to hear from
people whe find it impossible or difficult to access Internet (by difficult
I mean having to manually route the message through a gateway) or who don't
know how to send to a Bitnet address at all. Finally, I would like to know
what Internet return addresses look like when they arrive at Bitnet nodes.
Are they more, less, or equally (un)informative as messages from Bitnet
machines?

        Please send your responses to me directly, rather than to the list,
and I will summarize them for the list if there is any interest. I am
posting this message to INFO-GCG because the people that read this list
represent the kinds of people we would be communicating with. I sincerely
apologize to anyone who objects to this breach of protocol. Thanks in
advance for your help.


Stephen Clark

clark@mshri.utoronto.ca  (Internet)
sinai@utoroci            (Netnorth/Bitnet)

"We should be quite remiss not to emphasize that despite the popularity of
secondary structural prediction schemes, and the almost ritual performance
of these calculations, the information available from this is of limited
reliability. This is true even of the best methods now known, and much more
so of the less successful methods commonly available in sequence analysis
packages. Running a secondary structure prediction on a newly-determined
sequence just because everyone else does so, is to be deplored, and the
fact that the results of such predictions are generally ignored is
insufficient justification for doing and publishing them."
   - Arthur Lesk, 1988