This is an astonishing development in light of the mixed reviews that
ListProc has enjoyed.  How was this decision made?  WHY was this
decision made?  What were the other alternatives?  What evidence is
there that BITNIC will be able to evolve the product so as to make it
fully compatible with Revised Listserv?  Is doing so a more economical
solution than contracting for Thomas' product soon to be released?  (I
doubt it.  Remember that, like it or not, Revised Listserv defines the
protocol, both because of precedence, and because of its quality,
funtionality and robustness.  This means that BITNIC not only must
continue to support a software product they own "forever," but also is
condemned to an infinite sentence of catchup so as to always remain
compatible with Revised Listserv.)
 
I'm sorry to say it (especially in such a public forum) but this whole
tack appears to be ill-conceived.  As I've said recently in a different
context, CREN's primary responsibility still is to attend to and enhance
the NJE mail network.  To spend members' money on a noninteroperable
product would not seem to be among its responsibilities.  The Board, I
suppose, is within its rights in making such a decision, but the
membership is equally within its rights to question it and to insist on
more disclosure on the factors considered, how the choice was made, and
why it became a matter for decision at all.
-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
Benjamin E. Chi                             BEC@ALBANY or [log in to unmask]
Director, Computing and Network Services                 +1(518)442-3700
The University at Albany, Albany NY 12222 USA        fax +1(518)442-3697