On Sat, 4 May 91 19:05:40 +0200, Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]> got up on his soapbox and said: > {tirade mostly deleted} > well of course since PROFS is not moving to RFC822 any time soon and > there is a considerable amount of PROFS users in the network we should > have LISTSERV generate PROFS notes instead of RFC822, otherwise they > can't reply easily, Irrelevant. There is no reason to cater to PROFS because the network standard is RFC 822 format mail. Personally, if it was up to me, I would refuse to register new nodes unless the site management certifies that they have installed an RFC 822 compliant mailer. And I think that existing sites that don't have such should be required to get one or be blocked from all network services, *including* LISTSERV lists. And CMS NOTE should be banned from Bitnet. Apparently so should the vanilla DEC VMS mailer. I wrote a file server (which will eventually handle lists) that runs on MVS. I originally had it generating "Reply-To: <>", which I claim is legal, but *ix chokes on it. So I changed it. I wasn't happy about doing so. Once I check the standard and convince myself that it's legal, I'll probably go back to generating an obnoxious message in the Reply-To which states that I'm putting in this stupid Reply-To because the stupid mailer on unix drops mail with null reply-to on the floor. > {stuff about requests to change listserv for various reasons} > This makes sense if > software Y is something that impacts everyone in an unavoidable way Well, if you get a mail loop between LISTSERV and an Acces/MVS recipient, that impacts lots of people, not just the ones on the list or at the Acces/MVS site. > If they are happy suffering from > the design of their software, fine with me. At the time we first got Acces/MVS, it was pretty much the only game in town for MVS. When our director expressed concern as to whether it would work in *our* environment, ACC responded "If it doesn't work, we'll make it work." See below. When we ran Acces/MVS, the vendor demonstrated that they were incapable of fixing the problems we had. We junked it. Not everyone is in a position to do that. It took us new hardware and many many months to convert to the IBM product. > If they want to fix it, even better. We certainly wanted things fixed. They couldn't do it. I invested a lot of my time and went through a lot of aggravation trying to get them to fix some things. In fact, ACC often didn't know which version of the source was current. And then it took them over a year to admit that they didn't have any source at all to the SMTP modules. So how could I possibly have asked them to change X-TO/X-FROM to BSMTP, which is clearly better? (BTW, ACC has since unloaded the product on Interlink.) > But I'm not going to let anyone convince me that it's MY problem. It's NOT your problem. I didn't actually say that it was. But since it has the potential to cause mail loops (it did at least once that I saw), and the cost of changing to something other than "X-To:" is tiny, and the impact is *ZERO*, I don't understand your resistance. But then again I have never seen anyone convince you to change your mind about anything. I don't even know why I bother trying. I will often take a stand on principle, which is what I suppose you're doing with this. But there are known cases of people convincing me that I'm wrong. Of course everyone knows that you're always right, and that we should all be groveling at your feet because otherwise you'll threaten to drop support or start charging for this perfect piece of software. No smilies here. /Leonard P.S. There's probably no point in continuing this argument. Of course, if both of us are the type that has to have the last word...