🚀 go-pugleaf

Nelson Broat wrote:
> In article <slrn45gae78.3e8.grobe@worf.netins.net>, grobe@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe) says:
> >
> >What is the status of the bit hierarchy?
> >
> >The FAQ hasn't been posted for months, resulting in virtually no
> >new proposals for groups.

I'm sorry. We've had two managers leave here (out of a management group
of six) and the work left for us is incredibly heavy. I have e-mail
pending from weeks ago and have not had time to spend on the gateways. I
have now printed out the various files. I will go through and try to
clean up the whole bit.* hierarchy, and will then post the checkgroups
and documentation to bit.admin.
 
> The hierarchy is still in existance and listserv's on bitnet still exist. As
> long as sites continue to remain a part of the bitnet this will continue. But
> even if everyone leaves, the corresponding lists will still exist, as they
> would more than likely be moved onto servers at the site where they were
> created. As for the listserv/usenet gateway, I believe it is maintained by
> David Lawrence, if not, then its probably still maintained by Jim McIntosh
> at AUVM.

It's maintained here on auvm.american.edu although I would still like to
move
it from our VM system to a unix system... some time when our workload
slackens
(ha ha).

> If anything happens to this hierarchy at all, perhaps that something should
> be to one day drop the "bit." in "bit.listserv.". Thus leaving "listserv." as
> the top level name, which to me, would be more appropriate. But for now
> we should let it be.

Agreed. The "bit." was never really intended for the public, but once
the
newsgroups "escaped" and became popular it became more and more
difficult
to rename them. Now, even though BitNet is gone, the name remains as a 
tribute to an early attempt at networking -- one that was generally
sucessful
and lead to early versions some neat packages: listserv, relay, etc.

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019