>Leonard Woren has commented on this point. No reason not to use the TO
>field. Leonard also identified the opportunity to make savings in
>bandwith and processing overhead.
Mister O'Reilly, I would like to refer you, like Leonard, to the previous
discussions held on this list. I see no point in repeating the same
things over and over every 6 months, so please read the archives of
LSTSRV-L. And, while we're at it, to the comments I made on Leonard's
letter, which, as far as I can see, didn't "identify" anything but merely
stated, without any technical argument to back up the statement, that
there would be savings.
I would like to extend to Mister O'Reilly, or to anybody else who is
interested, the offer that I have made in the past to a couple
individuals sharing the same views (there aren't that many, so you'll
easily guess the names). I am one of the global owners of the LINKFAIL
list. I propose to experiment the wonderful idea of making LISTSERV
compliant with a standard which it keeps violating in the most hideously
scornful way, by setting the "Sender:" of LINKFAIL to the address of a
human person, who can act on the error mail he receives, as specified
beyond the slightest possibility of ambiguity in the well-defined,
widely-respected RFC822 protocol, so that this list can become a model of
compliance, blah blah. I propose to change the "Sender:" field of
LINKFAIL to point to the personal userid of Mister O'Reilly, or to that
of any other person who believes that this is the way things should be. I
would request proof of the receipt of 10,000 interactive messages before
I consent to set things back the way they were before.
Eric
|