On Mon, 25 Nov 1991 11:53:50 EST [log in to unmask]
said:
 
>We could  change the  address, I  suppose, but  the program  itself will
>still identify itself as 'Listserv 5.2'
 
Which  again  is confusing  because  your  program  is not  LISTSERV  but
something different  and incompatible. It's  a bit as  if I wrote  a very
simplistic  editor that  fits in  (say) only  30k, for  people who  can't
afford to  spend more  disk space on  an editor, and  decided to  call it
EMACS 5.2 because the  screen setup looks the same from  the other end of
the room.
 
>(Quite honestly,  I disagree with  Mr. Thomas...I  think it will  be far
>more  confusing to  change  the  name...Joe User  thinks  that all  list
>serving programs are "listserv"
 
Joe User  does indeed  think that  all list  serving programs  are called
LISTSERV, because,  before a  flurry of new  list server  programs became
available for  unix about  1 year  ago, there  used to  be only  one list
serving program and it was  called LISTSERV. Nothing would have prevented
the  unix ones  from  choosing another  (and more  unixish)  name such  a
'list-request',  'list-daemon', 'listmaster'  or whatever.  Above all,  I
really fail to understand how the name of the software itself (as opposed
to  the ID  it uses)  also had  to be  LISTSERV. Technics  makes portable
cassette  players, but  they don't  call them  "Walkman DX-187",  because
that's Sony's brand name. Maybe it was a mistake not to register LISTSERV
as a trademark.
 
>Perhaps  instead Mr.  Thomas should  be working  with the  Unix listserv
>people to enhance compatibility...
 
Mr.Thomas  has been  working with  the  unix listserv  people to  discuss
compatibility, thank you very much. His  patience ran out in late august,
when it became clear that the vast  majority of the working group was not
the least  interested in  preserving compatibility  with a  "network that
still uses virtual punched cards", and  furthermore did not want to write
a  unix version  of his  LISTSERV but  something more  closely resembling
Ricky Hernandez's server (also known  as the "BITNIC LISTSERV", ca 1985).
While  I have  no  problem with  that,  the reason  I  started writing  a
"Revised  LISTSERV"  at  all  is  that  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the
functionality  provided  by  the  BITNIC  server, and  I  felt  the  user
community  needed more  than a  simple signup/signoff  server for  public
lists. But, of course, there is  no reason for such a respectable network
citizen as Michael Shappe to get  the facts right before publicly blaming
his own problems on someone else, is there?
 
  Eric