Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1626
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/01/09 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1626 Mon 09 January 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Brewing Software: *BRF* (Andrew Patrick)
Brewing S/W (Hmbrewbob)
Rice extraction.. ("Lee Bussy")
Wyeast Scottish Ale problems... ("Timothy P. Laatsch)
Water treatment/ Calcium effect on mash pH ("Bob Hall" )
Keg Crimes -- here we go again! (Louis K. Bonham)
Honey in Brewing (Scott Bennett)
brewing ("Cheryl Bann")
Champagne bottles (TPuskar)
Oats for brewing? (T. Daniel Crawford)
Cleaning Bruheat elements (Kinney Baughman)
Wichita Competition ("Lee Bussy")
Real Ale Fest (Dennis Davison)
Wichita Competition ("Lee Bussy")
Carbonating w/o priming or counter pressure (William G.Garrison)
Brewing Water Inquiry (QUAYLER)
The HBD archives are moving ("Stephen E. Hansen")
******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from
sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via
mail from listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 03:46:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Andrew Patrick <andnator@mcs.com>
Subject: Brewing Software: *BRF*
In all this talk about brewing software, I am incredulous that Mr. Chris
Campanelli's outstanding Beer Recipe Formulation software has not been
mentioned. Of all the programs reviewed in Zymurgy last year, this one
got the best review by far.
It is shareware, it is available at sierra.stanford.edu, and the
registration fee is a very reasonable $15. Version 2.0 is currently
being beta-tested. The current production version is 1.1. It's also
available on my BBS Network for those who are FTP-challenged. The
filename is BRF11.EXE, and it is a self-extracting ZIP file.
I know that it is an essential tool in my brewing repertoire.
Andy Patrick (andnator@mcs.com)
Certified Beer Judge; Brewing Instructor-College of DuPage County,IL
Founder, HomeBrew U BBS Network:
Chicago 708-705-7263, Houston 713-923-6418, Milwaukee 414-238-9074
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 07:21:20 -0500
From: Hmbrewbob@aol.com
Subject: Brewing S/W
Hi all,
Ben asked for opinions on brewing software so here is mine.
I have been using Bob Regents Brewing Calc. for about a year now and its
the best purchase I made since the wort chiller. I'm an all-grain brewer and
it has taken the drugery out of recipe calculations and gives me important
info that I would not have bothered to figure out manually. I have looked at
suds and was not impressed(shields up)but the price is right. Regent will
send you a sneak peak of his s/w for $5 which is deducted from the purchase
price. Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything about the two other packages.
No matter which one you decide on this is one of those things that once you
get use to using it you'll wonder how you lived without it.
Bob
Hmbrewbob@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 07:57:25 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Rice extraction..
Gary Zipfel (any relation to the Green Acres crowd? :)) asks:
>My question for the HBDer's is how does one go about extracting the sugars
>from rice? I've looked through both of my books (Papazian and Miller) and
Having just made a *gasp* American Lager! I can shed a little light
on this.
All I did was crack the rice with my Corona (which is still handy for
these things) and cook it with more water than you would normally on
the stove top. I infused that into my grains when it was done and
went on like normal. I'm not sure if the cracking/crushing did me
any good but it didn't hurt. I would assume that the rice would stay
pretty much intact in the mash if you didn't. Anyone that has
personal experience to dispute that, please tell me. It was a b*tch
to crack.
********************************************************
One other comment. I have noticed a tendency of late to post answers
to e-mail instead of the Digest (assuming that these questions are
getting answered at all). I'm a big violator as well.
I do have a couple of comments about this. If the volume of response
is going to be huge (like a survey) or is obvious to most (like
referring newcomers to the beginners FAQ, then E-mail is the place
for it. If not, then let's try to keep the q/a ratio on the "a"
side. I dunno, most of the digest these days seems to be
questions.... which is good.. keep asking them. I just think that
when the balance tips in that direction it is time to put some more
info on the digest.
One added benefit to reponding in this forum.... you know if a person
has received a reply or not to his question. Important to me anyway
and to the brewer in question I'm sure.
- --
-Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... |
leeb@southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 09:58:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>
Subject: Wyeast Scottish Ale problems...
Hey HBDers,
Well, my much anticipated scottish ale has been delayed. I fear that my
starter may have been contaminated, but I'm not sure. Here's how the
situation developed: Wyeast pack "smacked" and allowed to swell. It came up
very quick---full swell in 24 hours. Starter #1 was 1 quart at 1.055 OG,
fermented at 62 F. It was very slow, with very little activity in the first
48 hours. I went away for 3 days, came back, and found the head to be
receding and an unusual brown resinous ring about 1/8" high near the liquid
surface. I thought that maybe it was break residue and forged ahead in good
faith.
I made starter #2, 1 gallon at 1.055. I pitched to the second
starter and noticed no real off-odors or anything of the like. I tasted some
of the starter and it was not great but certainly resembled beer. Starter #2
was active very quick with a nice head after 24 hours. I allowed it to
ferment three days and have noticed some unusual activity, although not that
extraordinary. There was a large amount of brown resinous scum
resembling hops on the foam head---I don't think it was a problem. There was
a fair amount of fine break-like material loosely adhered to the walls of the
starter jar (could be disturbed by very mild agitation). The beer is still
active and quite cloudy. The most disturbing thing, however, was the aroma
emitting from the airlock-----a somewhat sour odor characterized by sulfides.
I opened the starter and poured a 1.5 cup sample off the top for a
taste/aroma test. The beer was extremely cloudy and had an unusual but not
overpowering odor. I thought it to be characterized by sulfides primarily,
but my wife (a non-brewer, non-beer-drinker) immediately wrinkled up her nose
and said, "it smells sour". I cautiously drank some and found it to be a
little sour and rotten-eggy at the onset, but quickly smoothed into a real
beer flavor (or as close as one gets in an extract starter).
So after my long-winded post, my questions are: Should I risk using this
starter for my scotch ale? Is 1728 characterized by sulfides or sourness in
the early stages of fermentation? I know, "When in doubt, throw it out", but
my gut feeling is that this may just be normal fermentation activity for this
particular strain and that given time it will mellow into a very fine beer.
The starter flavor had real hints of greatness in the finish, if you could
get past the bad odor initially. I must confess that I ran out and attempted
to purchase some more 1728, but much to my dismay found only Irish, so I
bought it and smacked it for use in this ale while I await the answers from
the collective Wisdom. Thanks and sorry for the loooooonnnnnnggg post.
Bones
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Timothy P. Laatsch
Graduate Student in Microbial Ecology/Bioremediation
Michigan State University
Kellogg Biological Station
Kalamazoo, MI
laatsch@kbs.msu.edu
Brew Free or DIE!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 95 12:46:19 EST
From: "Bob Hall" <bhall@sparc.ecology.uga.edu>
Subject: Water treatment/ Calcium effect on mash pH
Al K writes:
>I'm fuzzy here too and would like someone to clear this up. I was under
>the impression that adding calcium (as Gypsum or as Calcium Chloride) indeed
>does not "acidify" the water (i.e. it does not add H+ ions as true
>acidification would), but rather buffers it and keeps the pH low. My
>understanding is also that carbonates have a very strong ability to lower
>the pH and thus simply adding gypsum to high-carbonate water will not lower
>pH, nor will it keep the pH from getting too high.
When crushed malt is added to pure water, the pH of the mash rests at about 5.8
or so because the grain contains phosphates which act to buffer the mash. This
is the same sort of buffer system found in commercial pH 7 buffer, and is the
equilibrium of H2PO4- -----> H+ and HPO4-
Addition of gypsum, CaSO4, or calcium chloride, CaCl2, has the effect to lower
mash pH because calcium precipitates with phosphate to create calcium phosphate.
When the phosphate is removed by calcium, more H2PO4 dissociates to form H+ and
HPO4- . This increase in hydrogen ions H+ is what lowers mash pH. Adding acid
directly lowers mash pH by adding H+.
Addition of calcium carbonate to the mash has the effect of raising mash pH,
and its alkalinity. The calcium ion releases one H+ from the phosphate buffer,
but will use two H+ ions because CO3-- and 2H+ ------> H2CO3. At a mash pH of
5.3, most of the carbon is in the H2CO3 form, with a little bicarbonate HCO3-,
and essentially no carbonate CO3--.
Too much alkalinity, that is too much calcium and magnesium bicarbonate, in
the water will buffer the mash pH so strongly at a too high pH that calcium
sulfate will not be able to lower mash pH without adding too much of it. Thus
boiling the water first drives off CO2 gas which causes calcium carbonate to
precipitate. After racking the water off the top there will be much less calcium
bicarbonate to buffer the mash at too high a pH.
Bob Hall
bhall@sparc.ecology.uga.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 11:41:30
From: lkbonham@beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham)
Subject: Keg Crimes -- here we go again!
In HBD #1625, someone (unfortunately, he didn't leave his name; I
guess I owe him a couple of beers) related that a copy of last
summer's "Great Keg Crimes Debate" on the HBD had been forwarded
through various channels to the legal department at Miller. He
kindly posted the response of Miller's Senior Counsel, Kristin
Kaplin, which predictably disagrees with my thesis, primarily based
on her view that the jeweler/watch hypo is inapposite:
>When a home brewer maintains possession of a keg, merely forfeiting
>the deposit, the brewer is not a "good faith purchaser," as was the
>watch customer in the above hypothetical. Subsection (1) of UCC 2-403,
>is intended to protect a purchaser in good faith. A home brewer
>is not a good faith purchaser because a reasonable home brewer is
>aware that the keg is property of the brewer, and that the value of a
>keg is far greater than the deposit he/she has placed. The cost that a
>home brewer would incur should he/she purchase a keg at market,
>and the manufacturer's "property of" insignia on the keg ensure that
>the home brewer does not purchase in good faith.
Ms. Kaplan thus posits two reasons why the keg-keeping homebrewer
can not possibly be a BFP [bona fide purchaser]: (1) the value of
the keg is more than the deposit, and (2) the brewery stamp makes
the consumer "aware" that the keg is the property of the brewery.
Neither of these arguments hold water (or beer). The price paid /
value passed issue is simply irrelevant to whether a purchaser is a
BFP; the consideration test of BFP status is whether the consumer
"paid value," not whether that value was somehow equivalent to the
putative value of the res. [Indeed, were Ms. Kaplan's argument an
accurate statement of the law, BFP status in the UCC 2-403 context
would be essentially meaningless, as any sale could be challenged
on the basis that "inadequate" consideration was paid. Such is
just not the law.]
The keg stamp ("Property of x") argument is similarly unavailing.
To begin with, most kegs I've seen *don't* say "Property of x",
they just say "X." This marking is to prevent mislabeling of
product and/or passing off one brewers' product as another. However, even if
kegs *did* say "Property of x," the consumer could still be a BFP
*if* it can be shown that the seller was in the business of selling
such marked items. This is, of course, the real issue, as we shall
see.
>Second, a beer retailer is not a merchant who deals in kegs and
>therefore cannot transfer title to the property. Where a person
>entrusts possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that
>kind (a jeweler entrusted with the repair of a watch for example),
>power is given to the merchant to transfer all rights of the entruster
>to a buyer in the ordinary course of business. A retailer is licensed to
>sell beer, it is not their intention to deal in beer distribution hardware.
>When a brewer transfers possession of the keg to the retailer, only the
>power to pass title to the beer within the keg is transferred because
>that is the kind of goods in which the merchant deals.
My thesis -- to which Ms. Kaplan referred at the head of her letter
- -- was that unless a keg transaction is expressly manifested as a
keg rental one (and sometimes they are), it could also be viewed as
purchase/repurchase w/ liquidated damages one. If it so viewed,
then the retailer is in fact buying and selling "beer distribution
hardware" on a daily basis.
Moreover, most keg beer retailers I know of (in Texas, you generally
get keg beer retail at a "Party Barn" type of place that
specializes in selling keg beer) routinely dispose of unclaimed or
damaged kegs as scrap. Such would constitute being in the
necessary business to trigger UCC 2-403.
>Finally, Mr. Bonham's argument blithly ignores the fact that the
>stamp on a keg manifests the owner's intention to remain the rightful
>owner of the property."
Pardon my french, but this is complete bullsh*t. BATF regs and
state laws require keg stamps to prevent mislabeling of product,
nothing more. Putting "Miller Brewing" on the keg no more manifests
an intention to remain the owner of the keg than labels on bottles
manifest Miller's intent to continue owning *them* after sale.
To the estent that Ms. Kaplan wishes to continue this debate,
perhaps she would address the following:
1. Abandonment. Is it Miller's position that it *always* remains
the owner of a keg, even if it could be considered "abandoned
property" under state law? Most homebrewers I know don't get their
kegs by forfeiting the deposit, but by getting them from a salvage
dealer.
2. Contracts. What do Miller's contracts with its
distributors *actually* say regarding ownership of the kegs?
(This may answer the question against Miller by itself.)
3. Tort Liability. It is Miller's position that it is the owner of
the keg at *all* times? Such a position would raise very
interesting liability questions in the event of an injury from a
mishandled keg.
4. Criminal Liability. This thread was originally started in
response to a letter in BT by Sierra Nevada's president claiming
that mere unauthorized possession of keg was a criminal offense.
Does Miller concur, and, if so, whats the basis of this belief.
As always, I'm around to discuss the matter. To conserve HBD
bandwidth, I'll be happy to receive and do a summary post of
questions / answers / comments on these issues.
Best regards -------------> LKB
lkbonham@beerlaw.win.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 15:15:06 +0500
From: sbennett@vt.edu (Scott Bennett)
Subject: Honey in Brewing
First of all, I just joined the list. Thanx for a great forum for a bunch
of people to talk about a great hobby.
I have brewed, I guess, about six batches of beer. Ever since the second, I
have used 1/2 cup of honey boiled in about 2 cups of water and then cooled
for my priming sugar. I have always been pleased with the results.
As far as getting honey taste or flavor, I have brewed two recipes from
Papazian's book with honey in it and was always dissapointed that there
wasn't any honey taste. Maybe it would be better to use it in the same way
as flavoring or aroma hop. I guess you would want to use it only in lightly
hopped beers, though as a novice I could be completely wrong.
I have gotten a lot of good advice already on water treatment from the list.
I guess I need to go back and review my college chemistry.
Well, here's my $0.02.
Scott Bennett
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 95 06:24:10 -0500
From: "Cheryl Bann" <bannx001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: brewing
I want to find out where and what to get to begin brewing my own brew. what
suggestions do you have? cheryl
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 19:48:56 -0500
From: TPuskar@aol.com
Subject: Champagne bottles
OK so here I am all proud of myself for going to the local recycling place
and gathering up a couple dozen champagne bottles to use for my beer--hate to
fill those 12 oz bottles!
I soaked them in ammonia to clean them and get rid of labels, rinsed the heck
out of them and then sanitized them in my normal bleach solution.
I was just getting ready to put them away and use them to bottle a spiced ale
now in my seconadry and I decided to make sure the caps fit. Guess what!!
They don't!!! Actually, they do fit most of the bottles but my double level
capper won't seal them.
Does anyone have experience in using champagne bottles with normal beer caps?
Do I need a different type of capper? The neck finish look similar to the
beer bottles but does appear to be a bit longer between the top rim and the
secon rim. How's that for a technical description?
I didn't pay particular attention to the type of wine that was in the bottles
but I did notice a number of Korbel labels in the trash.
ANy help or comments would be appreciated. Meanwhile, I'll be cleaning those
damn brown bottles.
TIA
Tom Puskar
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 18:51:36 -0500 (EST)
From: crawdad@zopyros.ccqc.uga.edu (T. Daniel Crawford)
Subject: Oats for brewing?
Folks,
Can anyone give me advice on the best types of oats to use for
making an oatmeal stout. Recipes generally call for "steel cut oats." What
is the difference between steel cut oats and the normal rolled oats
available in the grocery store (if any)? Does anyone have any preference
with respect to oat types/brands?
Thanks in advance,
-Daniel
- --
T. Daniel Crawford Center for Computational Quantum
crawdad@zopyros.ccqc.uga.edu Chemistry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 23:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: Cleaning Bruheat elements
GRMarkel@aol.com says re: his Bruheat element:
>#2 - it is important to keep the element clean. This sucker does get
>hot causing the sugars in the wort to caramalize on the element. This coating
>really kills the units heat time. The best way I found to clean it is good
>old Brillo pads. I realize this is probably not the recommended cleaning
>method, but I've been doing mine this way for 1-1/2 years with no ill
>effects.
The recommended method of keeping the element clean is to boil a tablespoon
of B-Brite in a gallon of water in the Bruheat after each round of use. The
B-Brite will "float" the white coating of sugar from the element, leaving it
sparkling clean and avoiding the abrasive effect of the Brillo pads. If you
don't remove the white coating, it becomes brown the next time, then black,
and then comes the Brillo pad. :-)
Cheers!
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and
baughmankr@conrad.appstate.edu | I'm late for work.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 22:47:40 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Wichita Competition
Greetings all!
This is yet another reminder of the Second Annual Greater Wichita
Homebrew Competition to be held on March 25th, 1995.
We still have spaces available for judges and stewards. Beds for
brewers are available.
Of course entries are definitely welcome!
I can send a packet E-mail (To those of you who got the bad ones... I
have fixed the problem!) to those of you who are interested.
Don't wait untill it's too late. Don't miss this chance!
- --
-Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... |
leeb@southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 22:05:05 -0600
From: ddavison@earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison)
Subject: Real Ale Fest
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Chicago Beer Society is proud to announce Real Ale Fest (RAF).
In the wake of Spirit of Belgium, we want to carry on the tradition of
homebrew clubs sponsoring mini-conferences relating to specific beer styles.
Real Ale Fest will take place in Chicago on October 13th and 14th 1995. Mark
your calendars now.
Events to include:
Seminars on:
What is Real Cask Conditioned Ale
How to Judge Real Ale
How to Brew Real Ale
And many more
Seminars for Beginning, Intermediate and Advanced brewers
(Speakers from Britian and the US)
Homebrew Real Ale Competition, Keg Only!!
All entries will be handpulled with authentic British Beer Engines
English Dinner
Handpulled Cask Conditioned Real Ale Tasting (Imported and Domestic)
And Much More
This will be the first event in the Unitied States to dispense all beer with
British Beer Engines. Unless you have been to England, or are planning to go
there, this may be your only chance to sample some of these fine Cask
Conditioned Ales. Don't miss this history making event.
Style guidelines will follow in the months to come. Full schedules will be
available sometime in June. Those interested in being on the mailing list
can contact me via E-Mail.
- --
Dennis Davison ddavison@earth.execpc.com Milwaukee, WI
Beer Judges do it with Styles
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 12:09:26 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Wichita Competition
Thanks to those of you who responded. There is a minor correction on
the electronic version of the packets sent out.
The mailing address should only be the homebrew shop: What's Brewin'
listed. My address is likely to be non-existant by the time most of
you send entries as I'm sitting on what will be center ice of a new
skating rink.
Thanks for your time.
-Lee
- --
-Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... |
leeb@southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 1995 17:26:16 -0700
From: ggarrison@qualcomm.com (William G.Garrison)
Subject: Carbonating w/o priming or counter pressure
Anyone know of a way to modify the "Carbonator" to work w/ glass bottles?
If the AHA sprinkled their holy water on PET use in contests, I wouldn't
have to ask this question.
I have difficulty counter pressure bottling and would rather work with
Cornelius kegs.
All suggestions are welcome.
ggarrison@qualcomm.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 20:35:41 -0500
From: QUAYLER@aol.com
Subject: Brewing Water Inquiry
I just recently had an analysis of my well water performed, and I'm
not quite sure how to proceed now that I have the results. The lab
results are as follows:
CATIONS As Element* As CaCO3*
Calcium (Ca) 87.60 219.00
Magnesium (Mg) 34.40 141.73
Sodium (Na) 54.20 118.16
Potassium (K) 2.44 3.12
Iron (Fe) <0.05
Manganese (Mn) <0.02
Copper (Cu) 0.05
Zinc (Zn) 0.06
ANIONS
Chloride (Cl) 78.0 110.0
Nitrate / Nitrite (N) 0.5 1.8
Sulfate (SO4) 36.0 37.4
Bicarbonate (HCO3)351.4 288.0
Fluoride (F) 0.06 0.16
Silica (Sio2) 7.3
pH 8.1
Total hardness 360.7
(*Why are some of the results reported both "as element" and "as
CaCO3"?)
From what I have read it seems that my potential problems are
that the pH and hardness are a bit high, and as a result I should boil
all my brewing water first. Is this a correct interpretation? Should I be
doing anything else? I have until now been brewing with bottled
water (Poland Springs). Anyone have any idea as to the properties
of this water?
I realize that the desired water properties have much to do with
what style of beer you're brewing, but assume for argument's sake
that I am planning to brew a brown ale. I look forward to any comments
or suggestions. Thanks in advance.
Chip Quayle
(quayler@aol.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 1995 22:14:55 -0800
From: "Stephen E. Hansen" <hansen@hops.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: The HBD archives are moving
About three years ago I took the HBD archives and moved them from
mthvax.cs.miami.edu to sierra.stanford.edu. In September, I took on a
new job across campus and the a number of changes were mandated for the
system known as Sierra. For one, sierra.stanford.edu has been renamed
to ee.stanford.edu and the name Sierra has been given to another system,
for another, the owners of ee.stanford.edu (nee sierra) have decided to
limit the ftp usage of the system to EE department related files.
Fortunately, the group I now work with is responsible for maintaining
the campus servers for e-mail, mailing lists, WWW, and ftp. I was
able to wrangle sufficient disk space on the ftp server for not only
the HBD archives but for the Mead Lover's and Cider Digests as well.
I was hoping to run the archive at both the old and new systems in
parallel for a week or two but it has taken longer to get the new disks
online for the new one and the name change for Sierra took place this
past weekend. The new archive is on ftp.stanford.edu. The files have
all been transferred but won't be available for a day or two. I will
try and run them both for few days but the old archive machine is now
known as ee.stanford.edu. Ftp connections to the new Sierra will now
point you to ee.stanford.edu. Once the new archive is accessible I'll
have both EE and Sierra point to the new system.
On ftp.stanford.edu the HBD archives are under /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.
Other than that they're the same as they were under /pub/homebrew on the
old Sierra.
One change is that the new archive system itself will not support
listserver or e-mail access to the archives. Instead, I am recommending
that people without ftp access make use of the ftpmail service at
gatekeeper.dec.com. Send mail to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the
word "help" in the message body for information on how to use this
service. I believe that you will find this service much more flexible
than the listserver.
I regret that this change couldn't have been smoother but I don't think
that there will be any period when the archives will be completely
unavailable.
Stephen Hansen
homebrewer, archivist
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stephen E. Hansen - hansen@Netserver.Stanford.EDU | The church is near,
Computer Security Officer, Room 319, Sweet Hall | but the road is icy.
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-3090 | The bar is far away,
Phone: +1-415-723-1058 Fax: +1-415-723-1294 | but I will walk carefully.
WWW & PGP: http://www.stanford.edu/~hansen | -- Russian Proverb
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1626, 01/09/95
*************************************
-------
