>On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 07:27:15 -0600 Steve Hirby
><[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>>> 3. don't blame LISTSERV's "auto-delete" function for something
>>>    which is totally beyond its control.
>>
>>     Re: 3,  Seems to  me that  there is  a legitimate  question whether
>>LISTSERV,  in   implementing  auto-delete,  should  knowingly   rely  on
>>information that is unreliable. The  intention of auto-delete is to save
>>listowners work; deleting in error based on reliable information has the
--------------I should have said "unreliable"-^
>>opposite effect.
>
>That's  all fine  and well,  but  unfortunately LISTSERV  hasn't got  the
>beginning of a possibility to  classify delivery reports as "reliable" vs
>"not reliable".
[...]
>  Eric
 
     Of course. But if something can't be declared to be reliable, then it is
perforce unreliable. So the design question becomes, "Do I take my chances?"
(on the principle learned from _The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine_, that "Not
everything worth doing is worth doing well"), or do I conclude that the state
of the art won't allow me to implement a certain feature, no matter how
desirable, 'cause I can't promise that it will work as designed and intended?
 
     To be sure, LISTSERV gives us (listowners) the choice--we don't have to
use auto-delete if we can't stand the flack it may generate and/or don't want
to run the risk of disappointing some of the very people we're trying to help.
But that doesn't change the fundamental question; it just pushes it back on us.
 
     Peter Weiss pointed out that this topic had been pretty well hashed over a
month or so ago, but I don't recall this particular slant coming up.  If so,
and I missed it, sorry for troubling the list with it again.
 
Steve Hirby
FUNDLIST listowner
[log in to unmask]