X-Junk-Score:   0 []
X-Cloudmark-Score:   0 []
Return-Path: <G.E.Fowler@lboro.ac.uk>
Received: from weed.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.226] verified)
  by mail.stalker.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7k)
  with ESMTPS id 47286955 for CGatePro@mail.stalker.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:16:04 -0700
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=mail.stalker.com; client-ip=158.125.1.226; envelope-from=G.E.Fowler@lboro.ac.uk
Received: from [158.125.1.203] (helo=ping.lut.ac.uk)
	by weed.lut.ac.uk with esmtps (SSLv3:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.66)
	id 1KYFFV-0001Fr-Sm
	for CGatePro@mail.stalker.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:15:25 +0100
X-Lboro-Archived: Archived
Received: from [82.5.39.142] (account ccgef@lboro.ac.uk [82.5.39.142] verified)
  by ping.lboro.ac.uk (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6)
  with ESMTPSA id 10598287 for CGatePro@mail.stalker.com; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:15:25 +0100
Subject: Re: Dynamic Cluster
From: Graeme Fowler <G.E.Fowler@lboro.ac.uk>
To: CommuniGate Pro Discussions <CGatePro@mail.stalker.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-47284511@mail.stalker.com>
References: <list-47284511@mail.stalker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:15:20 +0100
Message-Id: <1219821320.14491.1.camel@ernie.internal.graemef.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scan-Signature: 1f0c781c3423ffe23b6737cc759f6c83
X-Lboro-Filtered: weed.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:15:25 +0100

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:42 +0530, Ranju wrote:
>  What are the disadvantages of Communigate Pro Dynamic Clustering?

When compared to what?

Graeme