|
Sender: |
Revised LISTSERV discussion <LSTSRV-L@UIUCVMD> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
Eric Thomas -- TAMU account <ERIC@TAMVM1> |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Aug 86 19:28:24 CDT |
TO: |
Jose Maria Blasco Comellas <ZCCBJBC@EB0UB011> |
Reply-to: |
Revised LISTSERV discussion <LSTSRV-L@UIUCVMD> |
Aaaah, *that* :-) Well, in fact the difference-between-revised-and-mundane-
LISTSERV was intended primarily as "advertisement" material, back in the days
when there were only two revised LISTSERVs in the world (FRECP11 and TAMVM1).
The console logs showed that 95% of help/info commands came from system adminis
trators, and I wanted the info file to list the improvements over the BITNIC
version. Now that revised LISTSERVs have become quite common, this information
is no longer necessary; besides, a new Joe user's first encounter with a LIST-
SERV machine could well be with a FRECP11-type one (you made a good point,
Gary). However, the information should be made available to users who started
on a BITNIC-type LISTSERV and whose host has just migrated to revised LISTSERV.
So what I intend to do is to move the "improvements" section at the end of the
memo, replace it with a general blurb on the purpose and operation of LISTSERV
(similar to NICSERVE's LSERV INFO2). I also plan on adding a "changes since
last version" section at the end of the memo (something SHORT). I must also zap
the "please do not generate too much traffic on this server, FRECP11 is a dead-
end node, etc." I would like to keep the keywords section, but perhaps as a
separate file (this would save me time when updating it -- it appears also in
LISTOWNR MEMO). The reason why the LISTSERV MEMO explanations sometimes sound a
bit technical is that they were originally extracted or paralleled from LIST-
OWNR MEMO, before I completely rewrote half of it (it=LISTOWNR). I'll try to
fix this inconvenience when I have time ( :-( )...
Eric
PS: I'm leaving Texas in about an hour, so don't expect any reply before a few
days.
|
|
|