|
Sender: |
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Apr 87 08:29:01 PDT |
Reply-To: |
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011> |
REPLY TO 04/15/87 00:44 FROM [log in to unmask]: Re: PEERS NAMES
> If a user wants to know if there is something about VAXes on
> LISTSERV but his "home" server does not have such a list, he would
> be able to request this info to his server and then REV one of the
> indicated lists to see if it was what he was searching -- (assuming
> that headers were informative, which is a completely different story
> ;-)).
>
> Jose Maria
>
An alternate approach is to have one single site that users can look
to for such information. That is the obvious intent of LISTSERV
GROUPS. Ignoring traffic issues the biggest problem I see with this
file currently is that it is usually well behind the available
information that's really out there. Personally, I think both
approaches are worth having and it would be nice if we could also
come up with a better way of keeping LISTSERV groups up to date.
One of the problems with the distributed approach is that I'm on a
different server for almost every list I'm on. That is also a
confusing situation for the novice list user. Just which machine is
"my" server anyway? /June
To: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|