Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:50:02 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Uzi Paz wrote:
> I consider it as a real bug. The bug is simply the default name for the
> return path.
> owner-<listname> is a very bad and misleading name for the return path.
> It is natually misleading people to think that it is the address of the
> list-owner.
As long as I have had anything to do with listserv lists owner-listname@
has been reserved for error messages, just as listserv@ is reserved
for commands. As long as the users are informed I don't see that it
is confusing; I have certainly never told any subscriber to send either
list postings, commands or for that matter questions about subscription
problems to owner-listname@
I do not see it as any more confusing than telling them that listserv@
is for commands only, the list name is for posting items to the list,
never commands, and listname-request@ is for contacting a listowner if
one has a subscription problem and can't recall the owner's address.
What I do see as confusing is that other MLMs use the same form of
userid's to mean something other that what they mean in LISTSERV. That
can be
really confusing.
Douglas
|
|
|