Hi Eric,
 
You suggest you might delay file server development more. Please don't do
that.  Our list owners are refusing to move to our much less expensive
UNIX listserv because they can't search their logs.  What they want more
than WWW formatting, or more statistics, or AFD is to have the same
ability to pull messages out of the collection of logs by using the old
database search method that they have on the non-UNIX system.
 
Of course we'd love to have the new features for the WWW and more
statistics.  But if we can't convince them to even move to our machine
because they can't search their logs, those won't help much.  (The
proposed WWW functions won't give them that search capability.  Many of
the lists are private and don't want their logs on the WWW.  Only
subscribers can search the logs, and they are happy with that. Also they
like the fact that the current search functions result in them receiving
all the messages they want in a group in their mail.)
 
By the way, do you have any date on when we might get file server
functions that allow searching?  We need to prepare projected cost
estimates on how much we're spending because they won't move until the
file server works.  (We're really looking forward to that upgrade.)
 
Thanks,
Vickie Banks
H-NET Technical Assistance
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>You'll  probably  ask  why  LISTSERV doesn't  include  a  quality  report
>generator to convince management to spend  more money on the product, and
>you'll be right. It would be more profitable for L-Soft to have postponed
>the delivery  of the file server  functions for non-VM systems,  and have
>spent the  time developing  a state  of the  art reporting  system giving
>managers all the metrics they need to  send more money our way. If enough
>people feel this way, I am willing to freeze further development until we
>have  the  necessary reporting  tools  in  place.  If  this is  what  our
>customers want, we will do it.