I know I started this, but I'd rather cool things down a little.
 
I know there was a lot of frustration in my memo, but I'd rather
view this as saying, we got some real differences in facilities,
operations, etc here.  This is a real problem.  Hopefully,
our customers don't see it, but Listowners and postmasters
are really begining to see it, and it is begining to hurt.
 
The problems I had with GET are a real live example.  I still
don't know how to turn off the global GET of a list.  To me this
is a problem.  I probably use the global option on GET for
LISTSERV less than 5% of the time, because I don't need all the
peers, but one.  For example, I need to delete a ...@UK.AC....
user, or a uunet user.  Half the time, I have to get a copy
of the list, and manually inspect it.  I don't need the peers.
A local review won't show me those concealed.
 
The problem I had with GET listname FILELIST (CTL was another.
I was having problem.  I don't think I have the same situation
with LISTSERV.  So was it because LISTEARN is now different?
or was that function of LISTSERV added after 1.5o?  Sure I
have(or think I have) the announcements archived, but thats
more time searching, and you know how easy it is to find
a negative acknowledgement in a manual.
 
As it stands now, I would never reccomend peering a LISTSERV and
a LISTEARN list.  Not that LISTSERV is better, but because the
inconsistancies are not worth the aggrevation.  Sure it will
mean more traffic on the international links, but that is not
my problem.  (I've become very parochial, and getting my job
done is more important than traffic on links.  Of course,
sometimes traffic on links keeps me from getting my job done,
but that is another story.)
 
So, can we turn this around into dealing with the real problems,
rather than ad hominem arguments?
/ahw