> Yep.  Most mailers can implement lists.  So, why do people use
> LISTSERV lists?  User-initiated subscription/unsubscription, so that
> it doesn't occupy the listowner's time.  The other consideration,
> which fewer people are concerned about, even though it's more
> significant (on Bitnet) is the savings in bandwidth from DISTx.  Every
> mail expert that I've discussed this with says that LISTSERV's use of
> "Sender:" is in violation of RFC822.  I like LISTSERV.  I do however
> think that the "To:" and "Sender:" field usage is not good.  When I
> receive a posting from a list, that posting is not "To" me, it's "To"
> the list.  I find "To:  ldw" distracting.
 
I agree with Leonard's points here, but I suspect there are a lot
of people who prefer the current LISTSERV practice of using the
Sender field for the list name.  Eric, would it be feasible in a
future version of LISTSERV for the list owner to specify whether
the To or the Sender field is used to carry the list name?
 
--  John Halperin  <[log in to unmask]>
    Stanford Linear Accelerator Center