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