I suspect this was supposed to be private e-mail, but since it was sent
 to the list, I can't help but respond.  But since we're quickly abandoning
 the topics LSTSRV-L was setup to discuss, I've re-directed the replies
 to my account.
 
On Mon, 25 Nov 1991 11:53:50 EST you said:
>>See Eric Thomas' response to item 3.  I think he has a point.  Can we use
>>a name other than "listserv"?
>>Steve
 
 By all means *DO* change the name.  It *never* should have been called
 "listserv" in the first place.  Why?  Because there is already a widely
 used facility called "listserv" with an established set of commands in
 place.  What happens when this new thing with the same name, but of
 course, incompatible commands, starts to become available?  Whoever
 decided to call the Internet facility "listserv" has done an incredible
 dis-service to the entire network community.
 
 (text deleted...)
>               (Quite honestly, I disagree with Mr. Thomas...I think
>it will be far more confusing to change the name...Joe User thinks that
>all list serving programs are "listserv"--I've had recent evidence of
>this in people's comments about registrar-l.
 
 I honestly think that if the facilities are incompatible, then the names
 should be different.  What good does it do a user, especially a *novice*
 user, to know that mailing lists are handled by "listserv" if he/she has
 to then deduce *which* type of "listserv" before sending commands?  If
 you think that they will be compatible enough for even a small subset of
 commands to be held in common, then you have more faith in the IETF than
 I do.
 
 -jj