On: Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 08:32:47PM -0600,Ben Parker Wrote:

} On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:12:25 -0400, Glenn Darwin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
}
} >I think it is time for Lsoft to revisit this problem...
}
} L-Soft has.
}
} A soon-to-be forthcoming 'Level Set' build of 1.8e will incorporate various
} small 'fixes' from the original 1.8e Release, along with some additional
} new features.  One of these new features will allow you to disable
} adherence to this (anacronistic but recently renewed) internet standard and
} so you will be able to prevent duplicates of the form
}
}  [log in to unmask]
}  [log in to unmask]
}  [log in to unmask]
}  [log in to unmask]
}
} even in bulk-add or DBMS operations.
}
} However, [log in to unmask] will always be considered by LISTSERV as a
} separate address.  Neither LISTSERV nor any other program (nor probably a
} lot of humans even) has any reasonable chance of determining that address
} as reaching the same person as the previous 4 examples.

Ben,  This is good news.  Thank you and please relay the thanks to the
developers.

A bit of clarification please.  What you are saying is that:

     [log in to unmask]
and
     [log in to unmask]

are two unique addresses that may or may not refer to the same person.
I agree that this is correct,  but hasn't there been code in ListServ
for some time such that the site admins can specify that "lsoft.com" and
"dc.lsoft.com" can be treated as equivalant?  Or is that feecher no
longer available?

Is there a document available (or soon to be available) describing the
fixes and new features?

--
Rich Greenberg   Work:  Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com   +1 770-563-6656
N6LRT   Marietta, GA, USA   Play: richgr atsign panix.com     +1 770-321-6507
Eastern time zone.   I speak for myself & my dogs only.     VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP))        Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/   Asst Owner:Sibernet-L