On Wed, 25 Nov 1992 07:43:00 EST Scott Ophof <[log in to unmask]> said: >Having also requested Tasos for such a disclaimer and seen what Tasos >will have in his next version (correct, Tasos?), I'd like to thank him >(again) for this respect shown Eric's LISTSERV. Again, I am not satisfied with this disclaimer which in my opinion is just a way to claim that a disclaimer does exist and tell anyone who still complains that they are nit-pickers. This is not about nit-picking, this is about users who don't know a thing about computer programming and really shouldn't have to learn the linguo of a trade which is not theirs just so they can understand the real meaning of disclaimers. The disclaimer says the 'listserv' is not a port, but an independent *implementation of LISTSERV*. Now tell me, how many non-DP users know the difference between a port and an implementation? What is wrong with "independent list manager for unix"? Which is actually much more accurate since the servers are not compatible and do not use the same peering protocols, and thus the one is not even an implementation of the other. >May I herewith suggest the concept of "KILL" scripts for LISTSERV? Ie. >some way a subscriber can tell LISTSERV to refrain from sending postings >with specified subjects/keywords on specified lists to that LISTSERV >subscriber? I use kill files extensively when reading news. The kill file is a bottomless pit, you add to it on a regular basis and never have the time or courage to edit it to remove old entries. When it becomes so big that the performance of your newsreader is affected, you just delete it and start from scratch. The only reason you do this is that you have to wait longer if you don't. No reason you would even think of editing your kill file if it only impacted the disk space and CPU of some LISTSERV somewhere. No thanks. Eric