******** ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * The independent guide to BITNET * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Volume 3, Number 8 * ******** * * * * ** * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ******** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **** ************************************************** 1 * * ****** ******* * * ***** * * ******* * * ** * * * ** ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***** * * * * * * * * * * ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ****** * * * ***** * * * * * * * * * *********************** ******************************* Christopher Condon Editor CONDON @ YALEVM Timothy Stephen Associate Editor STEPHEN @ RPICICGE Craig White Associate Editor CWHITE @ UA1VM June Genis Contributing Editor GA.JRG @ STANFORD David Hibler Contributing Editor ENGL0333 @ UNLVM Henry Mensch Contributing Editor HENRY @ MITVMA Deba Patnaik Contributing Editor DEBA @ UMDC Gerry Santoro Contributing Editor GMS @ PSUVM Marc Shannon Helpdesk Editor HELPDESK @ DRYCAS Glen Overby Technical Assistant NCOVERBY @ NDSUVAX Gary Moss Point of View MOSS @ YALEVM ********************* Contents - Issue 29 ********************* ********* * *** * EDITORIAL PAGE____________________________________ * *** * * *** * Bitnotes ....................................... 1 *** *** Writing LISTSERV .............................. 4 * *** * * *** * * *** * ********* ********* * *** * FEATURES__________________________________________ * *** * * **** * The BITNET/CSNET Merger Study .................. 6 * ***** * An Internet Name Server ....................... 13 * ****** * * *** *** * * *** **** ********* ********* * * DEPARTMENTS_______________________________________ * ***** * *** * Headlines ..................................... 15 * *** * New Mailing Lists ............................. 16 * *** * Feedback ...................................... 20 ***** * NetMonth Policies ............................. 21 * * ********* *********************** Distribution: 3792 ********************* 1 Page 1 ********* * *** * Bitnotes * *** * * *** * by Christopher Condon *** *** * *** * Yale University * *** * * *** * CONDON@YALEVM ********* "And so, from much reading and little sleep, his brain dried up and he lost his wits." - Cervates, "Don Quixote" "The election vote for the BITNET-CSNET merger resulted in a strong mandate to the BITNET Board of Trustees to proceed with the merger. Of the 417 members of BITNET eligible to vote, 216 votes were cast in the merger election. Of those, 195 were in favor of the merger and 21 were opposed. With this mandate, the BITNET Board of Trustees and the CSNET and UCAR representatives will proceed aggressively, through a Transition Team representing both networks, to formulate Bylaws, a Policy Manual, a (long-range) business plan and (short-range) transition plan, and other specific components required for the merger to actually take place. As these detailed proposals are developed, the memberships of the two networks will be kept informed and their input will be solicited. There is considerable optimism that the cost of the transition to the merged network can be kept far lower than the costs envisioned in the consultant's report. The incumbents were all re-elected to the BITNET Board of Trustees." - Jim Conklin Director, BITNIC I have probably mentioned before that there is an ancient Chinese curse which says, "May you live in interesting times." As I read through the plans for the BITNET/CSNET merger, that curse came to mind yet again. The thought that "all altruists should be burned at the stake" also came to mind, but that isn't the subject of this month's editorial. Interesting times. Over the next three years, BITNET and CSNET as we know them will cease to exist and become... something else. I have heard the the name "OneNet" thrown around, but I 1 Page 2 don't believe that is official. My guess is that the CSNET name will be no more, and the merged networks will still be known as BITNET. Of course, that may also be wishful thinking. If I understand the text of the plans correctly (in the Features section of this issue) most of us will not notice that a merger is going on, except for the wonderful things that will be happening. For example: "Realize a stronger voice for the BITNET/CSNET membership." Rather oddly stated, but true. BITNET and CSNET compete in many areas for resources (translation: money) as well as for membership. A combined network would fix that situation. "Realize optional services." These will be interesting to see. "Realize improved chances for longer term network services at minimal cost." Translation: The bigger the network and its financial base, the more stable it will be. If there are more nodes the costs of maintaining the network will be spread more widely. "Realize low-cost service that will meet small institutions' needs." Nothing new. "Realize a wider financial base." See "Realize improved chances..." "Realize increased technology transfer potential between universities and government/industrial users." A vaporlike benefit, at best. We realize this presently though our connections to other networks. While the potential for technology transfer may increase, I find the actuality unlikely. This pessimism of mine aside, I support the merger (not that I have much choice). That is because the current information center contractors (in the case of BITNET, EDUCOM) will be maintained until December 31, 1990. It is interesting to note that the sole benefit from the merger noted for *1991* is: "Realize improved services." I am certainly not anti-BITNIC, but I am interested in what kind of organization will replace it, or what it will become. I predict that EDUCOM will continue to administer the network beyond 1991, no matter what the plans say now, but that is beside the point... Little is mentioned about information center services, except that they will either stay at their current level or be "improved." I would like to hear more about this, because the information center is where the potential for improving network 1 Page 3 is greatest (and most noticable). The shakeup caused by the merger is the perfect opportunity to redefine the scope of responsibility and the staffing (size) of the Network Information Center. Perhaps my brain has dried up, but it seems to me that is the sort of issue that should be emphasized as we proceed with the merger. Larger financial bases and increases technology transfer are nice, but they won't mean much if network information services aren't expanded to meet the needs of the nineties. ***** In an effort to expand the ranks of our already bulging ranks, I am looking for people who are willing and capable of writing witty, interesting, and informative monthly editorials about life in EARN and NetNorth. We publish lot about the political and technical battles of BITNET, but we include very little about our sister networks. This situation is, of course, entirely unfair and should be recitified at once. If you are interested or have some ideas, send me a note! Until next month... Virtually, Chris Condon@YALEVM 1 Page 4 ********* * *** * Writing LISTSERV * *** * * *** * by Eric Thomas *** *** * *** * Centre Europeen de la Recherche Nucleaire * *** * * *** * ERIC@LEPICS ********* I have been asked to provide some information about the number of lines of code in LISTSERV, the time it took me to write it, etc. I do not believe in evaluating the amount of programming time required by a project by dividing the amount of lines of code by some managerial constants which supposedly represent the average efficiency of a programmer, but I respect the religious beliefs of other people, so here's the info. LISTSERV is comprised of 12750 lines of documentation and 35500 lines of code, of which 6300 are in assembler (the rest being REXX). The documentation is quite a bit verbose, as I enjoy writing in English (I take documentation as a pseudo-literary break in my grim everyday world of americanized technical jargon). However, the code is relatively compact, because I am very lazy, and do not particularly enjoy writing these meaningless sentences using this ridiculous vocabulary of 50 words or so. Have a look at the REXX part of the survey exec for an example; another example could be the LISTSERV database functions, which fit in 2400 lines of code (1100 assembler, 1300 REXX). The REXX code contains almost no comment (comments are for freaks who can't read core dumps); the assembler code usually has one comment a line, plus a number of block comments (I can't stand waiting for the core dump to get printed). The internals of LISTSERV were rewritten twice since the first version, not in the "stop and start from scratch" way but through a constant evolutionary process: whenever I needed to change a module to fix a bug, I would carefully review all the routines and usually rewrite them, the first time to use more powerful and efficient REXX programming techniques that I did not know when I wrote the very first version, and the second (and most important) time to adapt the code to the unexpected growth of the product and resulting requirements. The first time LISTSERV had something like 1/5th of the code it has today, and everything was rewritten. The second time, it had about 2/3rd of today's size, and maybe 2/3rd of the code was rewritten. That is, the actual amount of code I ended up writing is about 60000 lines. 1 Page 5 Most of LISTSERV was written during the 3 years that I was a student in Metz and Paris. I used to escape the grim world of Supelec every weekend and come to work in Centrale (FRECP11). The first morning was spent reading and answering my weekly couple of hundred mail files, the afternoon being spent working on the system or on other smaller programs like CHAT or RELAY. Sunday was usually dedicated to LISTSERV, as I prefer to work with large time slices. That is, most of LISTSERV took around 150 Sundays to write (14-hours Sundays, but then any managerial book or Supelec teacher will tell you that the amount of lines you can write a day does not depend on the number of hours you worked that day, nor on the programming language you have used). The rest (mostly the UDD) was done at LEPICS, where it is much more difficult to count the days since I am not forced to be away 5 days a week. That type of work is not something that you can bend into the rules of computing project management books. It is not something you can put into an equation, as in "150/20 = 7.5 months" or "60000/150 = 400 lines/day". It is not something you can control, plan, schedule, monitor, explain, evaluate, audit, etc. It is something that may happen, or that may not happen, but which will take place or fail to take place regardless of any of these "environmental parameters" that can be controlled by managers. It is clearly a process that cannot be owned and cannot be controlled, and therefore something that no manager or politician wants to have to deal with. 1 Page 6 ********* * *** * The BITNET/CSNET Merger Study * *** * * **** * Prepared by Gillepsie, Folkner and Associates * ***** * * ****** * a consulting firm * *** *** * * *** **** Send comments to POLICY-L@BITNIC ********* The following document was prepared by Gillepsie, Folkner and Associates, the consulting firm retained by the BITNET Board of Trustees and the CSNET Executive Committee to assist in the study of the merger. Your node representative reviewed this document (among others) when voting for the upcoming BITNET/CSNET merger. In addition to providing some background information on reasons behind the merger, it also provides some clues as to the changes we can expect in the near future. BITNET Board of Trustees Recommendation: After many months of study by representatives of both BITNET and CSNET, the BITNET Board (hereafter referred to as "the Board") has recommended that BITNET proceed with the merger of the two networks and their organizations, as has the CSNET Executive Committee. The Board considered the pros and cons of this decision at length in a several-hour discussion at their October 1988 meeting after studying the Study Group and consultant's reports. The Board unanimously felt that the merger was in the best interests of higher education and would present the opportunity to strengthen the networking support of our community by managing the common destinies of the two organizations to obtain the most enduring result. The CSNET Board has also unanimously recommended merger. This document is intended to briefly present the information for the members to make an informed decision. * Why are we being presented with this choice? Since BITNET is a membership managed organization, the Board feels that the final decision on the merger should be made by the membership. The membership is, therefore, being asked to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Board and vote YES to the merger question on the elections ballot. A two-thirds majority favorable vote will authorize the Board to proceed with the merger as described below and, if satisfied with the proposals of the Transition Team, to approve the bylaws of the merged organization, transfer the BITNET assets into it, and terminate the present BITNET Corporation. (Note that your vote must be received by February 6 in order to be counted.) 1 Page 7 * Background: Early in 1988 it became apparent that there might be several strong benefits to the merger of BITNET and CSNET. Issues which motivated the investigation were: 1. Simplify networking life for the end users; 2. Stimulate a move towards providing ready and convenient networking for the entire academic and research communities; 3. Maintain low-cost communication for all types of institutions and research users; 4. Provide wider connectivity among all fields of intellectual endeavor; 5. Provide a strong voice in networking for the current BITNET and CSNET community; 6. Offer better services at the same, or lower, cost. In February 1988 BITNET and CSNET decided to create a Study Group to review a possible merger. In June 1988 a consulting firm (Gillespie, Folkner & Associates) was engaged to assist the Study Group by developing reports on the status of the networks and a business plan for merger. The consultants provided reports and briefings to the Study Group which covered: pertinent factual information about the two organizations, including the financial and membership status; risks and benefits of merger; national and regional network information and analysis; a series of financial models and budget estimates; a possible dues structure; a short and long- term plan; a detailed business plan. The consultants also briefed both Boards on the reports and participated in lengthy discussions. * Why merge? The Board projected BITNET's future, and it is consistent with and enhanced by a merger with CSNET. Additionally, a merger of BITNET/CSNET would provide the following benefits to the BITNET membership: 1. There will be reduced competition for one niche. There is a need for a medium function network to complement the government sponsored NSFnet, but it only makes sense to have one; 2. There will be a strengthened voice for the BITNET/CSNET community as a merged network. This will be particularly important in dealing with such agencies as the NSF on planning and funding matters; 3. The combined membership will provide a wider financial base; 1 Page 8 4. Technology transfer will be encouraged by a good flow of information between universities and government/industry users, and between the two communities of expertise represented by BITNET and CSNET. BITNET and CSNET members will begin collaborating and interacting; 5. The combined network with professional management should lead to improved services; 6. There will be improved chances for longer term survival of a network which strongly serves small institutions and remains low cost to all institutions. Small institutions will remain as a part of the national network; 7. There will be wider connectivity of disciplines and significant new international connections available to both networks. * As in any merger activity, there are some risks. The main ones are: 1. There may be some additional costs for merger; 2. The service level could be affected; 3. Institutions that are members of both networks may combine services and cause a loss of total revenue. The Board feels that it has done detailed planning to minimize those risks. * What is the concept of the new organization? The concept of the merged organization as developed by the consultants is: 1. A new corporation will be created; 2. The merged network's Governing Board will be membership controlled with final election procedures to be put in place by the bylaws; 4. There will be an Executive Director supported by a small staff. * The goals of the merged organization are: 1. Provide a national and international, low-cost network service for academic instruction and research, and the government and industrial research community; 1 Page 9 2. Encourage and support national and international common academic and industrial research interest groups, such as computer scientists, automotive engineers, university administrators and historians; 3. Encourage and support higher education institutions of all sizes, including those of smaller size; 4. Provide a strong voice for the community it serves; 5. Emphasize a mail system that is easy to use, has high reliability, has a large number of nodes, has fast message service, and maintains low costs; 6. Be self supporting, which does not preclude seeking outside support to further network development and the communication of local, national or international scholars; 7. Foster "technology transfer" between higher education, government research labs and industry; 8. Provide a full range of services consistent with the scholarly mission of the community which the network serves; 9. Provide a class of service based on access-only (usage- insensitive) charges; 10. Provide excellent services (at least at BITNET and CSNET levels); 11. Provide average dues for BITNET and CSNET members that will not exceed their previous dues for the same service level; 12. Provide modern technology. * The membership of the merged organization will be: 1. Colleges and universities of all sizes; 2. Not-for-profits and governmental agencies; 3. For-profits (They will be able to communicate with each other, as well as others.) This concept will be reviewed and finalized by the Transition Team (described later) and approved by the Board. * What is the membership and financial state of BITNET and CSNET? 1 Page 10 1. The current goals of BITNET and CSNET are similar; 2. While the membership makeup of CSNET is predominantly through Computer Science Departments (53%) and BITNET is predominantly university Computer Centers (67%), both encourage all disciplines; 3. In June 1988 membership was CSNET 189 and BITNET 389; 4. 111 members belong to both CSNET (60%) and BITNET (29%); 5. Both networks are financially sound. * How will the transition take place? When? The transition will: 1. Maintain current services and levels of service for both BITNET and CSNET; 2. Maintain self-supporting capabilities; Provide continuing network services to BITNET and CSNET members with minimal disruption; 3. Maintain current information center contractors (EDUCOM & BBN) until December 31, 1990. * If the membership approves the merger, the following will occur: 1. The UCAR (CSNET is a project of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) Board of Trustees will vote on approving the merger. The next steps will assume an affirmative vote; 2. A Transition Team (appointed by the BITNET Board and CSNET) will finalize the short-term and long-term plans and the budget; 3. The BITNET/CSNET Boards approve the final short-term plan/long-term plan/transition budget and will appoint a Long- term Committee to build a long-range technical plan for the merged network; 4. The Transition Team will execute the short-term plan with the assistance of a consultant(s) and will produce the merged organization's bylaws and incorporation; 5. The BITNET Board and CSNET (UCAR) organization will approve the new bylaws and incorporation and transfer the two networks' assets and membership to the new organization. 1 Page 11 6. The Transition Team will be the primary agents for UCAR management, the CSNET Executive Committee and the BITNET Board of Trustees to plan and execute the transition and to assure balanced representation of the two constituencies. 7. The transition is expected to start in February 1989 with incorporation of the new organization expected in November 1989. * How will the transition be financed? BITNET and CSNET will share transition costs. The out-of-pocket transition costs are expected to be on the order of $500,000 to cover incorporation fees, legal fees, planning meetings and technical meetings. Some of these costs will be encountered by technical planning in any case. Each organization will be able to fund the transition without additional funds from the members, but outside grants will be sought to minimize these costs. * How will I know what is going on during the transition? The BITNET Board considers it imperative that the membership be aware of the transition activities and will require the Transition Team to issue regular progress reports as milestones are reached. * How will the merger affect my dues? In 1989 there will be no changes in membership dues. Since maintaining low cost is a high priority of the merged network, a structure of dues and fees for 1990 has been adopted for the merged network. This structure minimizes costs. Some institutions with overlap will be able to pay only one set of dues, if they chose to combine BITNET and CSNET connections. Assuming no elected change in service, BITNET members' (class I-IX) costs will be essentially unchanged. * How will the merger affect my service and cost? Short-term? Long-term? In 1989 members will: 1. Continue in their respective organization with their appropriate rules, policies and costs; 2. Continue with the same software, services and information centers; 3. Become members of the merged organization in the latter part of the year with no change in software, services or information centers. In 1990 members will: 1. Pay dues and fees according to the merged network schedule; 1 Page 12 2. Some institutions will be able to combine BITNET and CSNET services at a lower cost; 3. Continue with the same software, services and information centers; 4. Realize a stronger voice for the BITNET/CSNET membership; 5. Realize optional services; 6. Realize improved chances for longer term network services at minimal cost; 7. Realize low-cost service that will meet small institutions' needs; 8. Realize a wider financial base; 9. Realize increased technology transfer potential between universities and government/industrial users. In 1991 members will: 1. Realize improved services. * What does it mean if the membership votes yes? If the membership approves the merger, the transition process will begin as outlined previously. The BITNET Board will have two final approval actions to consummate the merger. The first will be the approval of the final plans and budget. The second will be the approval of the bylaws and incorporation of the merged network. These events will be handled carefully with every consideration for the future of the BITNET membership, but will also be entered with the intention to merge as expeditiously as reasonable. * What does it mean if the membership votes no? If the BITNET membership votes not to approve the merger, the networks will continue their separate existence and we will have missed an opportunity to become a stronger organization and reap the potential benefits. Neither network is in immediate financial danger, but the regionals are having some effect, and potential new members will continue to wonder which network to join. 1 Page 13 ********* * *** * An Internet Name Server * *** * * **** * by Murph Sewall * ***** * * ****** * SEWALL@UNCONNVM * *** *** * * *** **** University of Connecticut ********* * Editor's note: We thought that you might be interested in what the people of the Internet call a "name server." It turns out that we in BITNET can get some use out of it ourselves... Have you ever tried to reply to mail you've received only to have the SMTP gateway at CUNYVM, MITVMA, or CORNELLC (to name the most frequently used gates) return your mail with the message that the host (which just sent mail to you) is "unknown?" The problem is that BITNET's gateways to the Internet find hosts such as 'simtel20.arpa' or 'think.com' which are connected directly to the Internet (that is, have numeric 'IP' addresses) but are unable to locate hosts with domain style addresses which have their mail forwarded by MX (Mail eXchange) hosts. In other words, the gateway can't "lookup" the MX automatically. The solution is to address mail to domains served by Mail eXchangers by explictily naming the MX on the "To:" line of the address. The problem is how to identify the MX host for the domain you wish to reach. Now thanks to Dan Long and the computer center staff at sh.cs.net there is a convenient way for someone at a BITNET to determine MX hosts. A server has been created which accepts domain host names as input and returns the applicable "name server" records. Send mail to: nslookup@sh.cs.net (subject line ignored) With a text of: host1.domain host2.domain (etc.) For example, not long ago, a reader of the SAS-L list asked how to reply to a message posted by someone at 'gtelabs.gte.com' In order to find out, the following was mailed: 1 Page 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET To: nslookup@sh.cs.net gtelabs.get.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the reply: --------------------------------------------------------------- From: CSNET Domain Name Server Agent Below are the Domain Name Server Resource Records (RR's) we found for the names you asked about. The most common types of RR's are: NS - name of the machine that advertises the RR's for this domain. A - Internet (IP) address. MX - names of mail exchangers that accept mail for this domain and (in parentheses) the precedence or priority used (lower=better) in choosing mail routes. If your mail system doesn't automatically send mail via this MX host, you can usually force this routing using: @mxhost:user@domain or user%domain@mxhost NAME - the canonical name for this domain. This is essentially a pointer to the official name for the requested name. All other RR's will appear under this official name. CPU=... - gives information about the host CPU and Operating System. gtelabs.gte.com MX = relay2.cs.net (10), relay.cs.net (20) relay2.cs.net A = 192.31.103.5 relay.cs.net A = 192.31.103.4, 128.89.0.93 --------------------------------------------------------------- In this case, you could send mail to fred@gtelabs.gte.com by writing his address in the format: fred%gtelabs.gte.com@relay2.cs.net - or - fred%gtelabs.gte.com@relay.cs.net 1 Page 15 ********* * * Headlines * ***** * *** * edited by Christopher Condon * *** * * *** * Yale University ***** * * * Send your Headlines to BITLIB@YALEVM ********* * The Merger Will Happen: The Merger of BITNET and CSNet passed overwhelmingly, by over 90%. Out of 216 votes, 195 voted for the merger and 21 voted against the merger. In related news, the four nominees in the BITNET Board election with the largest number of votes are: Butch Kemper (Texas A&M) Glen Ricart (Maryland) Pat Skarulis (Duke) Bill Yundt (Stanford) * More NETSERVs: Thanks to Ed Zawacki and Melvin Klassen for their notes about the net NETSERV file/user directory servers at UICVM and UALTAVM. These servers offer the same files and services as the other NETSERVs, but will provide faster service if you are in their area. * The Relay 556@OREGON1 is gone: When Dave Boyes left Oregon, it was shut down permanently. * Correction: The user directory server IDSERVER@PSUVM accepts only messages, not mail as previously reported. * More LISTSERVs: Thanks to Dave Young and Jim McIntosh for their notes about the new LISTSERVs at TRINITY and AUVM. The one at AUVM accepts the /WHOIS command, and so acts as a user directory server. 1 Page 16 ********* * * New Mailing Lists * ***** * *** * edited by Christopher Condon * *** * * *** * Yale University ***** * * * Send your list descriptions to NEW-LIST@NDSUVM1 ********* Each of the lists described here is maintained on a LISTSERV machine unless otherwise noted. To subscribe to one of these lists you would send the following command to the the appropriate server via mail or message. SUBSCRIBE listname Your_full_name For example, if your name is Kristen Shaw and you want to subscribe to a list described as "DIAPERS@YALEVM" you would send the following command to LISTSERV@YALEVM: SUBSCRIBE DAIPERS Kristen Shaw To make contributions to the list you would send mail to DIAPERS@YALEVM. Please note that this is just and example and to my knowledge there are no mailing lists about diapers (although you never know). ***** NSP-L@RPICICGE - Noble Savage Philosophers The following discussion group description should be considered a point of departure. Every journey starts with a first step, and this is NSP-L's first step. The format and content of this discussion group is open to change as our needs and desires change. This initial description is intended to provide a framework for development, feel free to send your own ideas and suggestions aimed towards improving the flow of ideas to NSP-L@RPICICGE (i.e. everyone) or USERE9W9@RPITSMTS (just me). Second - As this is an INTRODUCTION to NSP-L, I would suggest that individuals who subscribe to NSP-L please introduce themselves to the others, such as; "Hi, my name is Bob, I'm a philosohy major at PDQU. The department is primarily ... while I tend to... So far my work has included.... etc." 1 Page 17 You, hopefully, get the idea. Provide any pertinent information you feel would help others understand your ideas, such as a few comments about your department, your academic background, your social and/or political interests, your extra-curicular activities, your strengths and weaknesses (e.g. I can't spell), your reason for subscribing to NSP-L, what you hope to do here, what you hope to do when you grow up (if you plan on ever 'growing up', i.e. Are you a gradual student?), etc. Thus far the discussion group has taken the following form: Individuals submit what they feel is appropriate and others branch off from there. Discussions and submissions to NSP- L@RPICICGE will be redistributed automatically to all subscribers. Periodically an editted journal of articles and discourses culled from the ongoing discussion will be developed and distributed. In developing the journal, person to person correspondence may parallel group discussion in order to lessen traffic over BITNET and NSP-L. The group discussion will be an 'open forum' exchange of ideas, unmoderated by the list's owners. The on-line journal will originally be modeled after NetMonth, The BITNET resources journal. NetMonth creatively utilizes fixed pitch character only text formatting techniques, producing an attractive and very 'readable' on-line journal suitable for printing on any printer. (This has been an unpaid advertisement for NetMonth) In practice, a topic is raised for discussion. Everyone contributes thoughts, articles, references, etc. until the topic is exhausted or another topic is raised. Sometimes two to three topics are on going simultaneously. Several individuals have stated that their particular interests are not well supported within their department, or that they have no consistent and/or sympathetic forum for critique of their work. We felt that NSP-L might be able to provide such a forum and may allow otherwise restricted individuals to develop their ideas in a less restricted atmosphere. During various periods in a semester many of us are probably working on papers. Please consider submitting one or more of these papers to NSP-L@RPICICGE for discussion. This is a rather painless way of jumping in feet first. Along with any submissions or instead of an initial submission each of us should take the time to introduce ourselves. Make your intro as long or short as you see fit, as discussions grow we will get to understand each other better and more fully. Coordinator: Barry B. Floyd 1 Page 18 PSI@HAMPVMS - Psi Discussion Forum PSI is a forum for discussing experiences, questions, ideas, or research having to do with psi (e.g. ESP, out-of-body experiences, dream experiments, and altered states of consciousness). We are especially interested in hearing about personal experiences, and considering why and how these different phenomena happen, the connections between them, how to bring them about, and what psychological or philosophical implications they have. Send subscription requests to the list owner. Owner: Ben Geer SPRINT-L@NDSUVM1 - Borland Sprint users Undigested discussion of problems, solutions, macros, formats, and so forth, for Borland's Sprint word processor. Moderator: WOLFP@GRIN1 BILLING@HDETUD1 - Billing and changeback of computer resources This list is not dedicated to any one product or supplier, but discusses general issues as well as detail pertaining to MVS and VM systems only. A monthly notebook will be provided for logging the discussion, this notebook can be obtained without being subscribed to the list. BILLING LOG8901 contains a summary of net mail during the last year on this subject. Owner: Rob van Hoboken MICS-L@HDETUD1 - MVS Information Control System This list is dedicated to the discussion of Morino's MVS Information Control System. This will be a technically oriented list dealing with this product only. Owner: Rob van Hoboken MEXICO-L@TECMTYVM - Knowing Mexico This list will talk about all the places and things you can do when you visit Mexico. In addition, you will be able to talk to people from some of those places and discuss with them about cities and spots you would want to visit. On some occasions we 1 Page 19 will be able to assist you with your inquiries about restaurants, hotels, clubs and sightseeing attractions you may like to go in your trip. In addition to all this information, every month we will publish a supplement with the most complete information about one city or place of tourist interest. The catalog of these supplements will be available, by request, from the list owners. Owners: Faustino Cantu Antero Cepeda Alfredo Abbud CLASS-L@SBCCVM - Classification We are pleased to announce the availability of a new list, called CLASS-L, which will serve researchers in classification, clustering, phylogenetic estimation, and related areas of data analysis. CLASS-L provides researchers with announcements, newsletters, and information about classification and clustering. Owners: Bill Day PHILOSOP@YORKVM1 - Philosophy PHILOSOP covers the arena of academic philosophy. Messages posted by subscribers can be of all sorts: work in progress, comments thereon, advertisements for conferences, newsletters, journals, or associations... job postings, conditional agreements on social action.... The items on the list have to have some connection with academic Philosophy; but that's not interpreted narrowly. Coordinators: P. A. Danielson Nollaig MacKenzie 1 Page 20 ********* * * Feedback * ***** * *** * a Letters Column * *** * * *** * "Letters! Where are the letters?" ***** * * * Send your letters to BITLIB@YALEVM ********* From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Feedback In the January Feedback, Leonard D. Woren wrote: "I would like to point out another trend in libraries: computerization. At some leading universities (USC is one; UCLA is another), the library is investing heavily in computer technology. This takes two forms that I'm aware of: (1) online card catalogs, and (2) online databases. I believe that within a few years, people who are put off by computers will be at a big disadvantage at the research libraries." I would like to reinforce Leonard's comments with some developments occuring in Israel. All university library catalog systems have been undergoing computerization over the past 2 years. These online card catalogs are today interconnected among the 7 universities so that a researcher in one university can determine if a book that is unavailable at his/her university library is possibly available at another library. He can then order the book remotely, and a mobile van makes a daily round of all the university libraries, picking up and dropping off books. This system works for both English books and Hebrew books (left to right and right to left). In the near future, with the completion of our Tcp/Ip infrastructure, all users, at all terminals in the network, will have access to the online library catalogs, allowing scientists, researchers and students to check for books, and order them without having to leave the terminal they are running their SAS simulation. 1 Page 21 ********* * * NetMonth Policies * ***** * *** * Everything you ever wanted to know... * *** * * *** * ...but were afraid to ask. ***** * * * BITLIB@YALEVM ********* NetMonth is a network service publication distributed free of charge to students and professionals in BITNET and other networks. This magazine and its companion file, BITNET SERVERS, are the work of the BITNET Services Library (BSL) staff and contributors from around the network. BITNET SERVERS is BITNETs list of servers and services. If you know of servers not listed in BITNET SERVERS, or if some listed are no longer available, please contact the NetMonth Editor. * Subscribing to NetMonth and BITNET SERVERS: Send the following command to LISTSERV@MARIST by mail or messgage: SUBSCRIBE NETMONTH Your_full_name A subscriber can delete him/herself from the mailing list by sending LISTSERV@MARIST the command: UNSUB NETMONTH Internet users may use these methods, but must address the mail to LISTSERV@MARIST.BITNET * Back issues: BITNET users may get NetMonth back issues from the file server LISTSERV@CMUCCVMA. For a list of files, send the server the the command: INDEX NETMONTH * Letters to the Editor: If you have questions or comments about BITNET or NetMonth that you would like to see printed here, mail your letter to BITLIB@YALEVM. Make sure that you specify in the "Subject:" header or somewhere in the letter that it is for the NetMonth letters column. 1 Page 22 * Article Submissions: The only requirements for NetMonth articles and columns are that they be informative, interesting, and concern some BITNET-related topic. Send your articles and to BITLIB@YALEVM. * Printing this file: VM users can print this file by using the "( CC" option of the PRINT command. VAX/VMS users should RECEIVE NetMonth with a format of FORTRAN. This will allow page-breaks to be accepted by your printer. _ __- __--- The __----- BITNET __------- Services ___________ Library "Because We're Here." ***************************************************************