On Wed, 25  Nov 1992 07:43:00 EST  Scott Ophof <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>Having also  requested Tasos for such  a disclaimer and seen  what Tasos
>will have in  his next version (correct, Tasos?), I'd  like to thank him
>(again) for this respect shown Eric's LISTSERV.
 
Again, I  am not satisfied  with this disclaimer  which in my  opinion is
just a  way to  claim that a  disclaimer does exist  and tell  anyone who
still complains that they are nit-pickers. This is not about nit-picking,
this is about users who don't know a thing about computer programming and
really shouldn't have to learn the linguo  of a trade which is not theirs
just  so  they  can  understand  the real  meaning  of  disclaimers.  The
disclaimer says the 'listserv' is not a port, but an independent
*implementation of LISTSERV*. Now tell me, how many non-DP users know the
difference  between a  port and  an  implementation? What  is wrong  with
"independent list manager for unix"? Which is actually much more accurate
since the  servers are  not compatible  and do not  use the  same peering
protocols, and thus the one is not even an implementation of the other.
 
>May I herewith  suggest the concept of "KILL" scripts  for LISTSERV? Ie.
>some way a subscriber can tell LISTSERV to refrain from sending postings
>with  specified subjects/keywords  on specified  lists to  that LISTSERV
>subscriber?
 
I  use kill  files extensively  when  reading news.  The kill  file is  a
bottomless pit, you add to it on  a regular basis and never have the time
or courage to edit it to remove  old entries. When it becomes so big that
the performance  of your newsreader is  affected, you just delete  it and
start from scratch. The only reason you  do this is that you have to wait
longer if you don't. No reason you  would even think of editing your kill
file  if  it only  impacted  the  disk space  and  CPU  of some  LISTSERV
somewhere. No thanks.
 
  Eric