F. Scott Ophof <[log in to unmask]> writes: > And I think that NJE is much "stricter" in its operation than the > software used in the Internet, thus less chance of problems at the > levels where Internet sites seem to have most of their problems. I see you've never used UREP... > Imagine for a moment how long it would have taken the Internet to > have grown as large as it is, had the network protocols there been > as "strict" as in BITnet... As a rebuttal, in the TCP/IP protocol suite, many parameters are negotiated, while under NJE both sides need to have matched static definitions or the con- nection will get into a wedged state. Just try initiating a second stream to a RSCS V1 system. > Eric, half-cynically, half-humorously, half-seriously (yes, this > adds up to 1.5...) would it be a good idea to just forget about > RFC-822/etc., SMTP & such and just concentrate on X.400? >;-) Getting back to the topic at hand, LISTSERV already does a good job of handling RFC-format headers. Speaking as a potential L-Soft customer, I want LISTSERV for VMS (or Unix) because of the features it has. If I wanted something completely different, I'd go buy something else instead. As a "service" department in my organiza- tion, we provide mailing list support, etc. Our users don't care if I use VMS, Unix, or ITS to do it, as long as the service I provide meets their needs. Thus, the decision to use LISTSERV is my decision, based on my experience with it. Make it into something else completely different, and that advantage van- ishes as well. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing [log in to unmask] St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA [log in to unmask] +1 201 915 9381