Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!cwh From: cwh@drutx.UUCP (Hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: UNIX mail nodes Message-ID: <1526@drutx.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 01:39:23 EST Article-I.D.: drutx.1526 Posted: Sat Dec 8 01:39:23 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 05:06:12 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 34 [Take this, all of you - and gag on it] > From **RJE** Sat Dec 1 14:50 EST 1984 > >From **RJE** Sat Dec 1 14:50 EST 1984 forwarded by **RJE** > >From uucp Sat Dec 1 14:25 EST 1984 remote from mhuxi > >From down!honey Sat Dec 1 14:19:03 1984 remote from princeton > Date: 1 Dec 1984 14:16-EST > To: drutx!cwh > Subject: Re: UNIX mail nodes > > i have a database of over 4,300 hosts and more than 25,000 links. > now, isn;t your suggestion slightly impractical? > peter honeyman _____________________________________________________________________ peter, Since I can't seem to create anything akin to a path to YOU, and since you didn't include one in your letter, I'll answer you here. _____________________________________________________________________ Thanks so much for the note. Yes, my suggestion would be impractical, that is if it had been my suggestion, which it wasn't. A fact not reflected in your letter - for whatever reason. My note (I think it was in net.followup, which is intended for such things) was a followup article (neat huh?) to someone's suggestion for a posting, at whatever periods (yearly? centennially?), of the physical locations of sites. If you're just dying to know, I'll locate the reference and pass it on. > now, isn;t your suggestion slightly impractical? The practicality of such a suggestion - were it made to me - would depend, presumably, upon the limitations of my database and my programming skills. Of the dozen or so data base managers (of varying sizes) I've written, only one threatened to grapple with the volume of data you mention - that's why I partitioned the data. - Regards - Carl