> I also observe that the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) has now
> also advertized its own "listserv" which is (mostly) of the non-Eric Thomas
> kind.
 
CNI is running the BU Un*x L*STSERV.  So it's not yet another implementation.
 
> Both as a user of their working-group lists and as author of LISTSERV, I
> would like them to either switch to Mailbase or let someone else run their
> lists on LISTSERV.  The other users of the lists often ask for the same.
> Some of the working group chairs have announced that they want to move their
> lists to Mailbase on another host due to all the problems they had with
> 'listserv'. The vice-president of RARE asked to be removed from all RARE
> mailing lists until the problems are solved. Here is a copy of his letter:
 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:54:33 +0200
> From: Juergen Harms <[log in to unmask]>
> To: RARE Secretariate <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: RARE Council of Admininstration <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: "news" list
> Autoforwarded: TRUE
 
> Please remove my entry from all lists directly managed by RARE and send me
> important information by fax or paper mail. I am ready to reconsider this
> decision when the secretariate has made the proof that it knows how to
> handle mailing lists, and in particular how to set the list up in a way
> that non-delivery reports do not go to the entire list.
 
> Juergen
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> So it seems we have a clear case: users want a change, some working group
> chairs actually demand a change, even top executives want a change; the EARN
> president formally asked RARE to consider switching to something else, and I
> complained about end-user confusion and the fact that running this software
> gives the impression that RARE passively condones a delicate and ethically
> controversial attitude. Nothing happened.
 
I don't know what version of Un*x L*STSERV the people at RARE are running, but
with version 5.5, I've never had an instance of a non-delivery report getting
sent out to a list.  It is certainly possible to misconfigure Un*x L*STSERV in
such a way that it might happen, but a good postmaster/list manager wouldn't
be likely to do so.  Even if some odd commercial mail system or X.400 gateway
sent such reports to the list, and managed to slip through the default filters,
it is quite easy to block error messages from any site by extending the
filters or adding the generating address to an "ignore" list.
 
So it's not clear to me that just switching the software to Mailbase or
something else would solve the problem, which seems to me to be that they
don't have enough experience to handle large mailing lists, regardless of the
software in use.
 
@alex