> Yep. Most mailers can implement lists. So, why do people use > LISTSERV lists? User-initiated subscription/unsubscription, so that > it doesn't occupy the listowner's time. The other consideration, > which fewer people are concerned about, even though it's more > significant (on Bitnet) is the savings in bandwidth from DISTx. Every > mail expert that I've discussed this with says that LISTSERV's use of > "Sender:" is in violation of RFC822. I like LISTSERV. I do however > think that the "To:" and "Sender:" field usage is not good. When I > receive a posting from a list, that posting is not "To" me, it's "To" > the list. I find "To: ldw" distracting. I agree with Leonard's points here, but I suspect there are a lot of people who prefer the current LISTSERV practice of using the Sender field for the list name. Eric, would it be feasible in a future version of LISTSERV for the list owner to specify whether the To or the Sender field is used to carry the list name? -- John Halperin <[log in to unmask]> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center