On 22 Nov 1992 21:21:46 GMT [log in to unmask] (Trish Forrest) said: > Here is a perspective from a site that lost their NJE connection and >consequently, took LISTSERV out of service with much disappointment. Having previously worked at a site going the same route, I also found out that gaining Internet access does not make up for the loss of NJE connectivity. :-( >I have included Mr. Thew only because he does not subscribe to this list >and I use his site to make a point which he can correct for errors if he >wishes. Now to the points I want to address on this mis-labeled subject, >because from my perspective, there is no battle here. Right! We should be working *together* much more to eliminate (at least smooth out) differences. > Second, it has been stated by Mr. Dupuy that the naming comventions >were not an issue for him. I don't think this issue was given sufficient >mention. I'd like to suggest/request that this be discussed here on LSTSRV-L, and that - if possible/agreeable - relevant postings be cross-posted with other lists/groups related to "listserv"s, which of course includes the list for LISTEARN. > I was also informed, by a second party, that Alan Thew >requested, on a list devoted to the unix listserv, that a disclaimer be >put in that it was NOT Eric's LISTSERV. 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. Though *I* would still like to see the disclaimer as first few lines in each item sent by Tasos' "listserv", where it would (hopefully) stand more chance of being read. >... >administrator informed me that we had been requested to take a full >feed (even though we still don't have the readership to justify the >resources) because it would make the job of the site providing us >with our feed a lot easier. Could someone tell me why this is so? But it's not relevant to the list, so may I request direct replies, not to the list? >Based on reports from our users, they prefer 'mail' for serious lists >that they subscribe to that are relevant to their research and interests, >while news is a purely recreational activity for them, like reading a >book on a rainy day. Um.. Netnews can also be preferable on high-volume LISTSERV lists gated with Netnews. (higher volume than that user wishes) 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 know of the "KILL" concept in newsreaders, don't use it, but can see its usefulness on high-volume lists and wherever the subscriber wants only a subset of the postings. > In summary, there is no battle here between LISTSERVs. To suggest >that there is implies some equality of competition between two or more >legitimate software packages fighting for a market. There is only one >LISTSERV, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to lend credibility >to software which I hope more and more sites are realizing is unethical >to use on purely professional grounds. Hoping that your posting ends the "battle which was no battle" (Um.. how can something that wasn't there have an end? >;-) ), would it be possible to discuss ways to extend the "listserv" concept to other opsyses with the various implementors having a common goal? Where Eric *can* give his blessing to the use of the name LISTSERV so users are less confused, maintainers have less problems, and implementors get less hate-mail? Heck, where LISTSERV develops netnews capabilities? :-) Regards. $$/