Mon, 6 Jul 1992 16:47:40 +0200
|
On Sun, 5 Jul 1992 09:34:54 PDT Richard Childers <[log in to unmask]>
said:
>I'm unacquainted with VM, but I'd guess UNIX offers improvements, such
>as the ability to shellscript, which represent evolutionary advantages.
You are quite clearly unacquainted with VM, so why do you assume that
it lacks "shellscripts"?
>I am acquainted with LISTSERV, and it's a fine package that does what it
>is supposed to. (...) I doubt it actually took you a few years, unless
>you had to write the mail delivery agent and develop all of the
>protocols as well.
You are clearly not acquainted with LISTSERV either. Yes, it did take me
a few years, because LISTSERV isn't a 200-lines program that implements a
handful of commands to edit SMTP alias files. In fact, LISTSERV is a
pretty large application.
REXX code: 28734
Assembler:
V1: 10047
V2: 7480
Total: 17527
VS Pascal: 10160
Code (V1): 38781
Code (V2): 17640
-> 56421 lines
>Besides, the word is - according to this very list - that there already
>*is* a Unix LISTSERV.
And once again you are talking about something you know very little
about, something you have just heard rumoured on a mailing list but have
no direct knowledge of. Sorry, there is no unix version of LISTSERV.
There are a number of unix shells to edit SMTP alias files and their
authors do insist on calling them listserv, in spite of their total
incompatibility and much more limited functionality. Due to this kind of
misinformation, an important executive stated at a RARE meeting (RARE is
a european state-sponsored networking organization) that LISTSERV had
already been ported to unix and thus it is no longer an asset of networks
like BITNET or EARN.
>I would want it to conform to the burgeoning standard, and it is from
>this standard that the people on this list are able to advise one
>another across a range of operating systems.
Wrong list. Try [log in to unmask] This one is about maintaining
LISTSERV lists, not about discussing burgeoning standards.
Eric
|
|
|