On    Wed,    19    Jun    1996    11:38:40    -0400    Gregory    Decker
<[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>So it is OK to take cheap shots at listproc?
 
*I* didn't take the cheap shot at ListProc, and I don't see that I'm in a
position to  be the knight in  shining armour defending ListProc  on this
list. If you want to defend ListProc  that is fine with me. My problem is
that you  stated that  there is  a lot of  work for  L-Soft to  do before
LISTSERV will  compare to  ListProc in  certain areas,  and then  did not
provide any kind  of details. Now I am aware  of the occasional complaint
about how you have to write your  own 10-liner if you want to use syslogd
whereas it's built in to ListProc, or  about the fact that you can't edit
the  LISTSERV list  files directly  (which is  a design  decision and  is
pretty much required to reach  LISTSERV's level of performance with large
lists), but you're the first customer to  say that a lot of work would be
needed to  bring LISTSERV on a  par with ListProc, and  you're definitely
the first customer who says something  like that and then doesn't explain
why. Since you're paying for LISTSERV it is in our mutual interest to get
this wish list so that we can address your complaints.
 
>My list is in the works. It starts with a list maintainers manual.
 
The list maintainer's manual should start public review by the end of the
month.
 
  Eric