>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