F. Scott Ophof <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> And I think that NJE is much "stricter" in its operation than the
> software used in the Internet, thus less chance of problems at the
> levels where Internet sites seem to have most of their problems.
 
  I see you've never used UREP...
 
> Imagine for a moment how long it would have taken the Internet to
> have grown as large as it is, had the network protocols there been
> as "strict" as in BITnet...
 
  As a rebuttal, in the TCP/IP protocol suite, many parameters are negotiated,
while under NJE both sides need to have matched static definitions or the con-
nection will get into a wedged state. Just try initiating a second stream to a
RSCS V1 system.
 
> Eric, half-cynically, half-humorously, half-seriously (yes, this
> adds up to 1.5...) would it be a good idea to just forget about
> RFC-822/etc., SMTP & such and just concentrate on X.400?   >;-)
 
  Getting back to the topic at hand, LISTSERV already does a good job of
handling RFC-format headers.
 
  Speaking as a potential L-Soft customer, I want LISTSERV for VMS (or Unix)
because of the features it has. If I wanted something completely different,
I'd go buy something else instead. As a "service" department in my organiza-
tion, we provide mailing list support, etc. Our users don't care if I use VMS,
Unix, or ITS to do it, as long as the service I provide meets their needs.
Thus, the decision to use LISTSERV is my decision, based on my experience with
it. Make it into something else completely different, and that advantage van-
ishes as well.
 
        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [log in to unmask]     St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
        [log in to unmask]    +1 201 915 9381