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.
$$/