On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, rex wrote:
> You won't see the message to be approved unless you enable attachments.

Precisely my complaint.

> I don't understand your comments about UNIX and LINUX. Here's an example of
> what I see running LINUX and Mutt (http://www.mutt.org) as as the MUA:

It was explicitely stated that the vaunted new LISTSERV antispam stuff
would *NOT* work with UNIX.  As to Pine, well, there are non-UNIX and
non-LINUX versions, but the nonUNIX/LINUX versions are useless for editing,
if one wants to retain the orginal From: field.  The notes explicitly state
that PINE users may have problems due to the attachments.  As to your
example,
>
> ===========================================================================
> [-- Attachment #1 --]
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.6K --]
>
> This message was originally submitted by XXXXX@XXXX to the BIRDTECH-L
> list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism (click on
> the link below), ignore  it, or repost an edited copy.

you illustrate my point; the item for approval was sent as an attachment.
Items for approval should *NEVER* be sent as "attachments" unless the
listowner requests them to be sent so.  For such to be the default, and
perhaps impossible to work around, is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
Neither I, nor my lists, some of which have over 4,000 subscribers world
wide, using all sorts of different systems, are interested in attachments:
plain text, please, which everyone can use.  Something which cannot be used
unless you have the latest "gee-whiz" is useless, as far as we are
concerned. For our purposes FUI/AFD is far more functional than attachments
and fancy websites.  This emphasis on websites and
"attachments/applications" is quite like insisting the only way to start a
fire on one's hearth is to use a nuclear weapon, when a match will do quite
nicely.  Just because it is the latest does not mean it is  preferable,
let alone "the best."

I expect, from what I have read, that this latest "improvement" will
double, if not treble, my work load, if I can get it to work at all.  But,
as I said, "LSOFT" is far more interested these days in big buck sales to
commercial firms than it is in the academic roots of LISTSERV, which I
think is a shame.

Douglas Winship
[log in to unmask]