I don't like replying with very extensive quoting, but I will this time,
though won't quote everything.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Ben Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:37:17 -0500, Winship <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Well, the [log in to unmask] address didn't work, I got in response a piece
> >of boilerplate for those who are *already* using LSOFT as a host site,
>
> Wrong.  Look again more carefully:
>
> >From: "L-Soft list server at HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (1.8e)"
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: LSOFT-ADMIN automatic reply
> >
> >Thank you for writing L-soft.
> >Your request for EASE-HOME Adminstrative help has been received and
> >forwarded to the server adminstrators who will take necessary action
> >and will notify you of the completion of your request.  ...
>
> The above reply came from the server HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM in response to your
> writing to the List Owner of the DONATIONS list (which forwards to the
> DONATIONS_REQUEST list) rather than to the list-address itself.  It is in
> no-way a response from [log in to unmask]

Well, yes, I saw where it came from, but I have no way of telling how
things are arranged at LSOFT, how your addresses are aliased, who might
receive what, or what address the response might come from, particularly if
it is piece of boilerplate from LSOFT.  I have, in fact, sent exactly the
same things (to sales and to donations) more than once, but have received
*that* piece of boilerplate only once, and *I* do not, myself, know which
it is in reply to, and I don't think that I should be expected to know,
since it does *not* mention *what* it is in reply to in any way (Subject:
is different, no quote of what I sent, nothing).

> Your message to [log in to unmask] is also recorded elsewhere in our message
> archives:
> >Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:02:22 -0500
> >Reply-To:     Winship <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sender:       L-SOFT Sales List
> >From:         Winship <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject:      Hosting charge query
> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> >If I were to transfer to your commercial host site ...

That's nice, at least you have a record of it.

> but apparently has not yet been responded to by the people in the Sales Dept.
> Your patience is requested.

So, a potential sale, perhaps not a huge commercial sale, but not an
insignificant one either, is not worth even a "Hi!  We got your request.
What you request will take some study.  We'll get back to you." type
message, within 12 hours?

> >As to [log in to unmask], that is a list (actually
> >[log in to unmask] now).  I thought it was the address
> >of a department, and someone would reply.  Oh, it's a list.  We'll I don't
> >know that I want the details of my questions about this broadcast to a
> >list,
>
> As stated in a previous/private email to you, the donations list is a
> list which is made up of the (very small) committee of people (3 at the
> moment, but the number fluctuates) who have the power to make decisions
> about what donations will and will not be granted.

No, you did not say that, nor anything like it, Ben.  I'll be glad to post
a copy of what you sent.  You never said anything about such a restricted
subscribership.  If only subscribers may post to the list (indicated by
auto-response from the list), and subscription is severely limited (see
below), and one shouldn't write to listname-request (indicated by you),
how are folk to ask questions?

    snip

> >so I sent some questions to donations_request-request.
>
> In this special case, not a good idea.  This is an L-Soft Functional
> list. The Owners of this list are site-wide server administrators charged
> with maintaining our many hosting servers.  They know nothing about
> donation requests and have no powers to grant donation requests.  The
> _subscribers_ of the list however are L-Soft _people_ who are exactly the
> cross-departmental decision-making group that you want to consider your
> request.  So do as I suggested in a previous private email and write
> directly to the List-Address as stated, even if it is a list, and not to
> the List Owners *-request address.

I *did* do as you suggested, Ben.  I was told I was not allowed to post to
the list, though perhaps I could from some other, subscribed, address, and
I should contact [log in to unmask]  That is
the consistent response.  *If* those who are subscribed to the list are
seeing my attempts at posting to the list, despite what the auto-response
says, then that piece of boilerplate needs to be changed.  And if I really
should not write to listname-request, the boilerplate should not say that
that is what I should do.  I'll post that item, also, if you like.

>
> >Response:
> >stock "you message has been relayed to listowner, if you were sending a
> >command .....," and nothing else.  The listowner has not replied.  I reply
> >to questions sent to listname-REQUEST for my lists, but I guess LSOFT
> >listowners are above such vulgarity.
>
> We have a very small team of people managing over 2,500 lists hosted on our
> servers.  It is simply impossible for them to be individually knowledgeable
> about each and every list and its nature and be able to answer in this
> personal way.  They must rely on the automated response message.  For L-Soft
> functional lists (such as [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], etc.) you need to reach
> the _subscribers_ of the list, by writing to the address as stated publicly,
> so that your message actually gets to the proper people.  In this case trying
> to go around that process, just because you are an experienced List Owner and
> you know about the special listname-request@... address is actually
> counter-productive.

I wasn't trying to get around anything, Ben.  I was doing what the
boilerplate *said* to do.  I would have done it anyway, but that does
not change the fact that that is what the auto-response *says* one should
do.

Ok, here are the steps I went through.
1. Posted a message to the address you suggested.  I got a reply saying
that the name of the list had changed and my message was being relayed
to the new listname/address.  When the posting to the list was relayed
I was told I could not post to the list, contact listname-request if I
had questions. (If the list subscribers see the posting anyway, despite the
rejection, the boilerplate needs to be changed.)
  (At around the same time I sent my first message to [log in to unmask]
   *I* do not know which generated the message from LSOFT-ADMIN.
   I have resent exactly the same messages, to exactly the same addresses,
   (from my "sent" file) and that auto-reply has not been repeated).

2. I resent what I sent to the list address to the listname-request, as
instructed.  I got in response a modified version of the stock LISTSERV
.mailtpl saying my message had been forwared to the listowner(s), but if
what I was sending was a command, send it to the command address, and gave
info on how to subscribe. (I'll post a copy of that, if you want to see
it.)

3. After about 12 hours with no response from listowner, I tried to get
some info on the list with the ususal commands.  Nothing other than
the stock "no info, maybe the listname is something else, ..., or it is
concealed, blah, blah..."

4. Ok, I'll try subscribing, that seems to be implied what I should do.
I get in response:
"> sub donations_request Douglas Winship
Your   system  is   outside   this  LISTSERV's   service   area  for   the
DONATIONS_REQUEST list. Your subscription request has been denied. Contact
the  list owner  ([log in to unmask]) for  more
information."

So, Ben, I posted to the list first thing, as you suggested.  I can't post
because I am not subscribed to the list.  I try to subscribe to the list
and am rejected, not in the service area.  I send to listname-request,
which most of the boilerplate says I should do, though you say I shouldn't,
and am told how to subscribe, which I am not allowed to do.

I am willing to wait for a reply from whoever received the item which I
sent to listname-request if that is the thing to do.  But you say that I
shouldn't expect a reply from that, that I shouldn't use that address.

Everything seems to go in a circle, do this, you can't do that, do this,
which is what the boilerplate says I can't do.  What do you suggest?
Wait for an indefinite period to see if I get some sort of reply?

If the boilerplate, and your assertion that the listname-request address
should not be used, are both correct, then there is no way, that I can
see, that donations_request can be contacted to *make* a request.

If the boilerplate, the .MAILTPLs are wrong, I suggest that they be
changed.

Douglas Winship  [log in to unmask]