On 16 Oct 1998 23:50 -0500, Winship <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Uzi Paz wrote:
> > I consider it as a real bug. The bug is simply the default name for the
> > return path.
> > owner-<listname> is a very bad and misleading name for the return path.
> > It is natually misleading people to think that it is the address of the
> > list-owner.
>
> As long as I have had anything to do with listserv lists owner-listname@
> has been reserved for error messages, just as  listserv@  is reserved
> for commands.  As long as the users are informed I don't see that it
> is confusing; I have certainly never told any subscriber to send either
> list postings, commands or for that matter questions about subscription
> problems to owner-listname@

Except for the simple and yet important fact that the name
"owner-<listname>" suggests otherwise.

Of course, Cleo ([log in to unmask]) is right, and we should expect
subscribers to read welcome messages, but it is totally clear to me what
caused Randy Ryan to confuse owner-<listname> with the address of the
owner of <listname> .

The mistake is not too common but far from being too rare either, and in
some situations (e.g. combination of Renewal=..,Probe, and
Auto-Delete=Full-Auto) the user who made the confusion, will have nothing
to correct him besides the fact that he does not get a response for his
request.

Historically the reasoning for the name is clear, as I assume that in the
past, bounced messages were conventionally handled manually by the list
owner.

As a general claim, this is no longer true.

The fact that it became a convention by L-SOFT (and perhaps others)
to use owner-<listname> for bounced messages is not a problem, as I
believe that no MUA or MTA _assumes_ this convention.

According to Internet standards bounced messages should go to the "From"
address of the SMTP envelop (or to address of the "Return-Path:" or Unix
"From " fields that are extracted from it, when the message leaves the
SMTP environment), so what harm can be caused by choosing the convention:
errors-<listname> or bounces-<listname>, instead of owner-<listname> as a
return address?

> I do not see it as any more confusing than telling them that listserv@
> is for commands only, the list name is for posting items to the list,
> never commands, and listname-request@ is for contacting a listowner if
> one has a subscription problem and can't recall the owner's address.

Except for the fact that the arguments mentioned above do not apply for
the case of LISTSERV@.... (the name does not suggests anything
missleading).

> What I do see as confusing is that other MLMs use the same form of
> userid's to mean something other that what they mean in LISTSERV.  That
> can be really confusing.

Uzi