Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:47:48 +0200
|
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 11:38:40 -0400 Gregory Decker
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>So it is OK to take cheap shots at listproc?
*I* didn't take the cheap shot at ListProc, and I don't see that I'm in a
position to be the knight in shining armour defending ListProc on this
list. If you want to defend ListProc that is fine with me. My problem is
that you stated that there is a lot of work for L-Soft to do before
LISTSERV will compare to ListProc in certain areas, and then did not
provide any kind of details. Now I am aware of the occasional complaint
about how you have to write your own 10-liner if you want to use syslogd
whereas it's built in to ListProc, or about the fact that you can't edit
the LISTSERV list files directly (which is a design decision and is
pretty much required to reach LISTSERV's level of performance with large
lists), but you're the first customer to say that a lot of work would be
needed to bring LISTSERV on a par with ListProc, and you're definitely
the first customer who says something like that and then doesn't explain
why. Since you're paying for LISTSERV it is in our mutual interest to get
this wish list so that we can address your complaints.
>My list is in the works. It starts with a list maintainers manual.
The list maintainer's manual should start public review by the end of the
month.
Eric
|
|
|