At 10:26 06/27/96 EDT, Nathan Brindle scribed: >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:20:07 -0400 you said: >> Tough call- does the company bend to >>the will of the (usually a minority) workers, or does LSOFT adjust to suit >>its customers (listowners and members)? > >You have the question wrong. It should be "does L-Soft willfully violate >Internet standards for mail just to please sites that run non-compliant >mail software, or do sites that run non-compliant mail software either >a) buy compliant mail software, or b) complain to the non-complying mail >software vendor loudly enough that the vendor redesigns the product to >come into compliance". > Technically, I agree with you 100%. cc:Mail is THE reason that I went to an ISP and got my own account. WWW is nice; newsgroups are nice; Eudora (and even Pine!) are what are worth my $30 every month. Unfortunately, this world is run by money and computer-illiterate suits who don't understand internet mail standards, the difference between SENDER: and FROM: lines, or why they should make a difference. As a result, one may never convince them why they should spend tens of thousands of dollars dumping what is to them a perfectly functional mail package that has worked (in their eyes) for years. My point is that there are two areas that the listowner/member can attack: LSOFT and management. I suspect most people are attacking both, and if LSOFT can comply without too much hassle, then perhaps they should assist their customers... >Begin(flame) > >Personally I'm sick and tired of sites that send back totally unhelpful >and uninformative messages to the effect of "The mail couldn't be delivered >but we're not going to tell you who caused the error" and other idiotic >hacks. If a company goes to the trouble to provide Internet access to >its employees, it should go the next step and provide its employees with >reasonable mail software that complies with recognized standards (RFC821 >and RFC822 come to mind). I'm mindful of a certain major Internet service >provider who often bounces mail back with "ambiguous address" errors. >The provider is serious, but his mail software is seriously hosed if >it can't even figure out who the mail is for. > >End(flame) > I think the best way to make this happen is to start filtering noncompliant domains. Unsubscribe subscribers with a boilerplate "Your site does not comply with ..., I will be unable to support your subscription until it is compliant" When (hopefully) the postmaster inquires what's going on, spell it out in polite, informative, easy-to-understand terminology. Maybe if we work together on this, and domains find their users locked out of every LISTSERV list, they'll start doing their part. >#include <std-disclaimer.h> > >Nathan > Philo -- ====================================================================== Philip B Janus || "Cigarettes are not addictive. [log in to unmask] || Just don't inhale..." *2*E GULC <*> || Dole/Clinton '96 http://www.radix.net/~philo || ======================================================================