From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 00:21:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA01683; Sun, 1 May 1994 00:21:37 GMT Received: from ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA01677; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 17:21:27 -0700 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 17:21:24 PDT Message-Id: <9405010021.AA25538@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Received: by zog.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26052; Sat, 30 Apr 94 17:21:20 PDT From: kpc To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) In-Reply-To: <3607185@toto.iv> Reply-To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov X-Disclaimer: No organization, company, or government is represented here. X-Attribution: kpc Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Quoth Michael C. Berch on April 29: > I think you have missed the point of the comments about anonymity on No, I didn't miss the point. You apparently misunderstood my post. Since these points are extremely important, it is definitely worth making sure that we are clear on what we are talking about, regardless of who, if anybody, misunderstood what. We're here to learn, not flame. > valuable ability of other list members to see who they are talking to. I never said anything about removing this ability. In fact, I implied just the opposite: I said I wanted to expand on this ability for my list. So you got this backwards. What I did say is that anonymity needs to be built into the system. This means letting those who don't want to be part of the listing feature conceal their addresses. If you interpreted my post differently, please re-interpret it, because it is important. Make non-anonymity voluntary, is what I am saying. Anonymity was not built into the system. This is what's a bug or a feature about it. (Yes, I know majordomo was only meant for sysadmins, and I am not blaming BC or anybody else for anything at all. I am making a general point about software and what kinds of social implications we should be thinking about when we write it.) > rely on something as breakable as (for example) disabling the > majordomo "who" command for secure privacy on a mailing list. I never said anything about relying on anything. In fact, I said just the opposite: it's not perfect. So you got this backwards. What I did say is that it helps. > part of Internet culture -- there are a number of alternatives ranging > from the anon.penet.fi server to the Cypherpunk remailers to having a I never said there aren't alternatives. In fact, I did just the opposite: I mentioned some by name. So you got this backwards. What I did say is that remailers are hardly a stable and convenient solution today. (Should they be? Yes. Should we therefore forget about making other software friendly (or, more accurately, non-hostile) towards anonymity? No. We should set up the future in a reponsible way.) > was "outed" this way, I think the best policy is to tell subscribers > that they should assume that the list membership is NOT secret I never said I didn't do this. In fact, I do the opposite: I tell them this explicitly. Mailing lists are not secure and I don't pretend otherwise. So, if you were speaking to me, you got it backwards. What I do maintain is that sticking a disclaimer in and forgetting about improving the system is a cop-out. It's better to help improve things than simply to hide behind a legal disclaimer. The problem can be resolved by considering this: allowing people to set conceal is emphatically not the same as preventing everybody from being able to use a who command to list those who have not set conceal. Several posts have conflated these things, and the point is much too important to be thought subtle or trivial. (It's sort of like saying that eating an apple is the same as not eating a banana.) In summary, there are several times in list discourse where rhetoric conflates internal and external negation, and this leads to confusion regarding what the important point is. The important points, again, are that anonymity does not need to be justified any more than free speech does, and that, as pioneers who supposedly have a cultural clue about the net, we have a responsibility to the community. Let me put this another way: we recognize safety, academic freedom, and efficiency as values, and we strive to implement them. My point is that we also need to recognize that anonymity is just as vital a value. In the way one lives ones life (and manages ones list and writes ones software), one often advertises ones values. Some more points, less important: > are whether (1) anonymity should be provided as a feature of mailing > list server software, and even if so, (2) whether it is good sense to Non-anonymity is a feature or a bug of mailing list software, not a lack of a feature. The who command is a feature, explicitly written. So it's backwards. The question is what semantics that feature (or bug) should have, and how to turn it off for those who want to. > software) to provide the service, especially where doing so removes the Again, it's not really providing a service as much as it's fixing a bug or a feature. If anonymity is built into the system, it requires little ongoing effort. If it's not, then it's a real pain to do what's right. I hope this clarifies. If it doesn't, send me email. There's no point in misunderstanding somebody's post and then claiming there's a problem with it based on the misunderstanding. If I have misunderstood yours in some significant way, feel free to correct me. But please remember in your next post that getting things backwards is evidently pretty easy to do, and that it's a good idea to reread a post that final time before following up to it. Again, we're here to learn and improve, not to flame. -- kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov. AI, multidisciplinary neuroethology, info filtering. On a superhighway, existing roads are destroyed, pollution and jams result, you can't make your own on-ramp, politics controls development; and they arrest you if you go too fast, travel in your own direction, or use unapproved technology. From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 14:46:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA05385; Sun, 1 May 1994 14:46:44 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA05379; Sun, 1 May 1994 07:46:26 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id ad26268; 1 May 94 15:38 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 13:34:06 BST In-Reply-To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme's message 'Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security)' of Sat 30 Apr Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) Message-ID: <9405011334.aa03844@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 30 Apr, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > +--- Nigel Whitfield: > | The From: and Reply-To: fields point to the list, with envelope and > | Errors-To pointing to the list-request address. > > That sounds like a pain. Which header contains the name of the sender? > Hopefully not Sender :-) No. (Why do I get the feeling people are going tell me they don't like what follows...) > Why so much magic? I feel the "standard" Unix way works very well, that is: > > From owner-mailing-list > From: author > Sender: mailing-list-request > To: mailing-list Because we're a gay mailing list in the UK. We had to address two specific problems when we wrote the software. Problem one is confidentiality. Lots of people don't want anyone to find out that they're on a mailing list. Hiding behind a processor script does some of that, but not all. So we have to use other methods, such as making sure that no one will receive error or acknowledgement messages that might reveal the list membership. Unless someone can prove otherwise, and I've missed out a header somewhere, the only way to find out who is on the uk-motss mailing list is by accessing the list host, or checking through an awful lot of mail spool directories. You won't know that someone is on the list unless they post to it. And if they want to post anonymously, they can contact uk-motss-request (re-mailers aren't allowed. If you won't trust uk-motss-request to keep your name secret, how can we trust you to keep the names of other posters secret?) > | The reason, incidentally, that we re-write the From: field is to > | prevent people receiving error messages that might indicate who else > | is on the list. > That reason is just too bizarre, sorry :-) No it's not bizarre at all. We're trying to provide a supportive forum for people, some of whom may be just coming out, some of who have received hassle in the past for even receiving the list. > Well, your list members > bring the hassle upon themselves, then. I must say I agree with > Mr. Berch - using anon.penet.fi or similar is the better solution when > you need anonymity. But not when the other people on the list need it. Given that the people who run anon.petet.fi won't help when one of their users compromises the confidentiality of my list, I'm not inclined to let that sort of address on to the list, either to read or to post. And I'd suggest that the hassle is not exactly brought upon the list members by themselves. Anyway, back to the problems. Problem number two is the historically fragmented networking in the UK. When we started running the list we left fields indicating the originator untouched. Since we were on a commercial host, mail came to us via a particular gateway. When we tried to send it on to people on academic hosts, various filters would step in and refuse the mail, because it originated outwith the UK. So we have to re-write all the messages so that they appear to come from an address within a UK domain. I don't believe there is a simple way round this... So what we have now (RFC wizards cringe here :-) is a system whereby messages headers are parsed and re-written beyond all recognition so this, on an incoming message: From: Nigel Whitfield To: uk-motss@pyra.co.uk Reply-To: n.whitfield@stonewall.demon.co.uk Subject: example message becomes this when it's sent out to the list: X-Original-From: Nigel Whitfield X-Original-Reply-To: n.whitfield@stonewall.demon.co.uk To: Multiple recipients of list From: Nigel Whitfield Reply-To: uk-motss@pyra.co.uk Errors-To: uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk Subject: example message It's not neat, but it works, and it's not broken any mailers yet. I won't begin to pretend that it's an ideal solution for any list, but within the parameters that we've set for uk-motss, it's the best way to work. It's certainly overkill for many other lists (though if you have a need for software like this, let me know :-)) Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 17:30:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA05843; Sun, 1 May 1994 17:30:44 GMT Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA05837; Sun, 1 May 1994 10:30:35 -0700 Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id NAA03841; Sun, 1 May 1994 13:31:14 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id NAA05596; Sun, 1 May 1994 13:13:20 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sun, 01 May 94 13:05:47 EDT for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: What is wrong with my headers and AOL? From: Gess Shankar Reply-To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 01 May 94 12:42:44 EDT Organization: |<><>| Knowledge Exchange, GA, USA |<><>| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk There have been some discussions about header rewriting etc. recently. I would like some advice on setting the headers for my lists. So people well versed on RFC822 and other relevant RFCs and SMTP etc., please let me know what I am doing wrong. I am attaching a complete set of headers from one of my lists as seen by an AOL user. All headers intact expect actual names, which have been changed to protect the innocent. Apparently the first four lines are created by the AOL mailer interface and reply automatically goes to the address in the From: (which is different from the From: of the actual headers, which seem to be appended to the mail message text) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 94-04-30 10:46:51 EDT From: KNEXMAILER@knex.mind.org Subj: scrollbar&HYPERTEXTCLI/SUP To: Foo [email message deleted] ----------------------- Headers ------------------------ From knex!KNEXMAILER@mind.org Sat Apr 30 10:42:43 1994 Received: from sunshine.eushc.org by mailgate.prod.aol.net with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA13091; Sat, 30 Apr 94 10:42:43 -0400 Return-Path: Received: from knex.UUCP (root@localhost) by sunshine.eushc.org (8.6.8.1/EUSHC) with UUCP id KAA25693; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:45:34 -0400 Received: by mind.org (8.6.8.1/MIND.ORG) with UUCP id JAA28797; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 09:57:15 -0400 Received: by knex.mind.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 30 Apr 94 08:20:55 EDT Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 07:57:55 -0400 Resent-From: KNEXMAILER@knex.mind.org Received: by knex.mind.ORG (V-MailServer 2.21) id VT50749; Sat, 30 Apr 1994 07:57:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 16:02:41 -0800 (PDT) From: foobar@mcl.ucsb.edu Sender: MAILSERV@knex.via.mind.ORG To: AMK/ScriptX Discussion List Message-Id: <199404292302.QAA15415@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu> Reply-To: AMK/ScriptX Discussion List Errors-To: KNEXMAILER@knex.mind.org Precedence: bulk Resent-Message-Id: X-Reminder-1: >>>>>>> Send articles to: MMDEVX@knex.mind.org X-Reminder-2: >>>>>>> Send server commands to Mail-Server@knex.mind.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 695 Subject: scrollbar&HYPERTEXTCLI/SUP AOL-Member: foo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This formidable set of headers evolved over a period of time and for the most part works just fine, till aol and delphi members subscribed. Now mail meant for lists is coming to routinely to knexmailer (which is the list owner address), forcing me either to return them or to read me mail figure out which list it belongs to and then forward it, which is work I shouldn't have to do. How does AOL mailer determine that the address KNEXMAILER is the one to use? It seems to me that they are using Resent-From: and ignoring the Reply-To: If there is something wrong the way the headers set, how come I have no problem with anyone else? I need some urgent help to fix the flow of mail to the wrong address. Thanks for your expertise. GeSS -- Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.mind.ORG |<><>| Knowledge Exchange|<><>|:::::::::::::::::::::::::|<><>| From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 18:19:48 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA05964; Sun, 1 May 1994 18:19:48 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA05958; Sun, 1 May 1994 11:19:40 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA05667; Sun, 1 May 94 14:16:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 14:12:27 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: What is wrong with my headers and AOL? To: Gess Shankar Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 May 1994, Gess Shankar wrote: > It seems to me that they are using Resent-From: and ignoring the Reply-To: It has been my experience that the AOL mailer reports the From: address, and when the reply option is used, the Reply-To field is ignored. David. From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 18:34:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA06043; Sun, 1 May 1994 18:34:41 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA06037; Sun, 1 May 1994 11:34:31 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id OAA13318; Sun, 1 May 1994 14:34:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199405011834.OAA13318@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: gess@knex.mind.org (Gess Shankar) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: What is wrong with my headers and AOL? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 May 1994 12:42:44 EDT." Date: Sun, 01 May 1994 14:34:03 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > This formidable set of headers evolved over a period of time and for the > most part works just fine, till aol and delphi members subscribed. > Now mail meant for lists is coming to routinely to knexmailer (which is > the list owner address), forcing me either to return them or to read me > mail figure out which list it belongs to and then forward it, which is > work I shouldn't have to do. > > How does AOL mailer determine that the address KNEXMAILER is the one > to use? It seems to me that they are using Resent-From: and ignoring the > Reply-To: > > If there is something wrong the way the headers set, how come I have > no problem with anyone else? I need some urgent help to fix the flow > of mail to the wrong address. Thanks for your expertise. Your headers are fine. AOL is apparently botching things up here, perhaps because their mail system is less functional than the Internet's. I don't know much about AOL but, it looks to be a similar situation to VMS MAIL systems, that don't have a separate from/reply-to address. Long ago it was discovered that the "best" mapping from Internet mail to VMS MAIL was to take the "reply" address from the Internet mail headers (either from reply-to or from) and map that to the "from" address of VMS MAIL. This is visually confusing but it does the right thing when people reply. Maybe this is why they are trying to map lists onto newsgroups -- because their email doesn't work very well. Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 23:16:05 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA07135; Sun, 1 May 1994 23:16:05 GMT Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA07129; Sun, 1 May 1994 16:15:56 -0700 Received: from menja.ifi.uio.no (1232@menja.ifi.uio.no [129.240.82.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 2 May 1994 01:15:57 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by menja.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 2 May 1994 01:15:56 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 01:15:56 +0200 Message-Id: <199405012315.12004.menja.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: Keith Moore's message of Sat, 30 Apr 1994 12:07:07 -0400 <199404301607.MAA03150@thud.cs.utk.edu> Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk +--- Keith Moore: | I can't tell from your description whether the mailing list expander | is expected to rewrite the To header field. If it does, it prevents | multiple lists from participating in a conversation. If it does | not, it breaks for those cases when the list address doesn't appear | in the To header. (this can happen when a "local" list address is | used and the mail is forwarded to the main list; the "local" address | might not be accessible by everyone.) I tend to think that those two mailing lists have their relationship turned upside down. Anyway, it should be a simple matter for the mailing list to rewrite its own address (if it somehow lacks the domain part) or add it to a Cc header if it is missing. +--- | Actually, I think this is a perfectly good reason to rewrite the | From header field. In general, From should not be rewritten, but | sometimes there are legitimate reasons. Okay, but this behaviour should be dependent on a "set conceal"-type command in an ideal world. It seems like "net wisdom" says that you should in general * never override _any_ supplied headers, not even Sender (but it should be OK to add one saying it came from the list if there is none supplied or it's identical to the From header) * remove only obnoxious headers (like Return-receipt-to or whatever) * add a sprinkling of other headers (X-Reminder, Precedence, what have you) to cater your own tastes. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Sun May 1 23:37:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA07215; Sun, 1 May 1994 23:37:49 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA07209; Sun, 1 May 1994 16:37:41 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id TAA14143; Sun, 1 May 1994 19:37:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199405012337.TAA14143@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 May 1994 01:15:56 +0200." <199405012315.12004.menja.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> Date: Sun, 01 May 1994 19:37:20 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > +--- Keith Moore: > | I can't tell from your description whether the mailing list expander > | is expected to rewrite the To header field. If it does, it prevents > | multiple lists from participating in a conversation. If it does > | not, it breaks for those cases when the list address doesn't appear > | in the To header. (this can happen when a "local" list address is > | used and the mail is forwarded to the main list; the "local" address > | might not be accessible by everyone.) > > I tend to think that those two mailing lists have their relationship > turned upside down. Well, I'm inclined to agree, but just like there's nothing that stops someone from subscribing a mailing list address to another list, there's nothing to stop someone from creating a list that points to my list. > Anyway, it should be a simple matter for the > mailing list to rewrite its own address (if it somehow lacks the > domain part) or add it to a Cc header if it is missing. The problem isn't usually that the address lacks the domain part; it's that a completely different address is used. Adding the list's address would then cause any replies to be delivered to the list twice. > +--- > | Actually, I think this is a perfectly good reason to rewrite the > | From header field. In general, From should not be rewritten, but > | sometimes there are legitimate reasons. > > Okay, but this behaviour should be dependent on a "set conceal"-type > command in an ideal world. agreed. > It seems like "net wisdom" says that you should in general > > * never override _any_ supplied headers, not even Sender (but it > should be OK to add one saying it came from the list if there is > none supplied or it's identical to the From header) > * remove only obnoxious headers (like Return-receipt-to or > whatever) > * add a sprinkling of other headers (X-Reminder, Precedence, what > have you) to cater your own tastes. something like that. I'm assuming that the defualt behavior for lists is to change only the envelope; and trying to come up with reasons why you might want to add/delete/modify certain headers under certain circumstances. Keith From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 05:14:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA08859; Mon, 2 May 1994 05:14:24 GMT Received: from ifi.uio.no by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA08853; Sun, 1 May 1994 22:14:17 -0700 Received: from menja.ifi.uio.no (1232@menja.ifi.uio.no [129.240.82.2]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/ifi2.4) id for ; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:14:49 +0200 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by menja.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:14:48 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 07:14:48 +0200 Message-Id: <199405020514.14271.menja.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: Keith Moore's message of Sun, 01 May 1994 19:37:20 -0400 <199405012337.TAA14143@wilma.cs.utk.edu> Subject: Re: Rewriting headers (Was: Error returns and list security) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk +--- Keith Moore: | [a local list forwards to a global list] Adding the list's address | would then cause any replies to be delivered to the list twice. There are two cases to consider. Assume we do add the real list address. A remote user replies; he will receive a bounce for the local list -- the real address will make it through. A local user replies; both addresses work. However, local hackery can make sure that only one copy is sent to each actual recipient. It's been done here with Sendmail 8.6.8.1, but I don't know how... This behaviour is a boon in a lot of cases. Don't you hate getting multiple copies? BTW, GreatCircle.COM is evidently not set up this way :-) Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 12:24:53 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA10349; Mon, 2 May 1994 12:24:53 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA10343; Mon, 2 May 1994 05:24:47 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id IAA13463; Mon, 2 May 1994 08:25:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199405021225.IAA13463@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 08:25:30 EDT In-Reply-To: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait) "New IETF Draft..." (Apr 29, 12:27pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: jailbait@intercon.com (Jailbait), list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: New IETF Draft... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Title : Bombs series: Behaviour of Mail Based Servers > Part 1: C-bombs > Classification of Breeds of Mail Based Servers Anyone know what the "bombs" reference is all about? --Mike From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 14:17:55 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA10856; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:17:55 GMT Received: from unpc.queernet.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA10849; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:17:45 -0700 Received: by unpc.queernet.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0pxypE-00014lC; Mon, 2 May 94 07:18 PDT Message-Id: Date: Mon, 2 May 94 07:18 PDT From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) References: <3607185@toto.iv> <9405010021.AA25538@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> Organization: QueerNet Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article <9405010021.AA25538@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>, kpc wrote: >Make non-anonymity voluntary, is what I am saying. A blatantly evil idea. "Set conceal"? Why not just call it "set spy-on-list"? >Let me put this another way: we recognize safety, academic freedom, >and efficiency as values, and we strive to implement them. My point >is that we also need to recognize that anonymity is just as vital a >value. Anonymity is, in general, thoroughly destructive to a community. It is valuable only when (as in secret ballots) we wish to allow the anonymous to be free of some consequences of their actions. This does not apply to mailing lists, in general, unless there is physical or professional danger to the poster. That is an issue for the poster and the list admin to handle. >Non-anonymity is a feature or a bug of mailing list software, not a >lack of a feature. The who command is a feature, explicitly written. The SMTP "expn" command is NOT a feature of mailing list management software. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy: the refusal of joy." -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 14:34:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA10930; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:34:26 GMT Received: from relay2.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA10924; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:34:15 -0700 Received: from uucp6.UU.NET by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwodu21988; Mon, 2 May 94 10:34:54 -0400 Received: from bytepb.UUCP by uucp6.UU.NET with UUCP/RMAIL ; Mon, 2 May 1994 10:34:56 -0400 Received: by bytepb.byte.com (5.65/smail2.2/06-30-87) id AA10089; Mon, 2 May 94 10:48:09 -0400 From: Ben Smith Message-Id: <9405021448.AA10089@bytepb.byte.com> Subject: Where do I turn To: uunet!GreatCircle.COM!List-Managers@uunet.UU.NET Date: Mon, 2 May 94 10:48:09 EDT In-Reply-To: <199405010810.BAA04223@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM>; from "GreatCircle.COM!List-Managers-Digest-Owner" at May 1, 94 1:10 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL5] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I seem to have everything (include new-list, more on that) working at ronin.com, but am having trouble with the address resolution of incoming messages. This appears to be either a sendmail or smail problem. Does anyone know where to post questions about that. (I do not participate in Usenet). Now, back to new-list: I found a bug (at least as far as my Perl version is concerned). On line 38, the $list = @ARGV[0]; is incorrect syntax. It should read $list = $ARGV[0]; When addressing elements of a list, the list-name is preceded by the $ not the list designator, @. -ben -- \^___^/ =================================================== (o o) Ben Smith / BYTE Magazine Peterborough, NH (USA) \|/ ben@byte.com || ben@ronin.com m =================================================== From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 14:48:28 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA10980; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:48:28 GMT Received: from netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA10974; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:48:19 -0700 Received: by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id HAA00788; Mon, 2 May 1994 07:50:10 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 07:50:10 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 May 1994, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > In article <9405010021.AA25538@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>, > kpc wrote: > >Make non-anonymity voluntary, is what I am saying. > > Anonymity is, in general, thoroughly destructive to a community. It is > valuable only when (as in secret ballots) we wish to allow the anonymous > to be free of some consequences of their actions. This does not apply > to mailing lists, in general, unless there is physical or professional > danger to the poster. That is an issue for the poster and the list > admin to handle. Some professionals, like attorneys, accountants, and private investigators have to be careful that a question or comment in a post is not correlated with their name or firm name in a manner/degree which may compromise a client's confidentiality and privacy interests. That is their professional and lawful duty. Anonymity may be a good means of posing a question in an open group without violating professional, legal, and client duties. I think these are just some examples among many where anonymity is perfectly reasonable. Another example is the practice in some companies to set up email type conferences where the managers and employees share opinions on a blind basis so that no one is shy to post frank opinions due to differences in authority levels. I don't think anonymity is inherently evil. James From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 16:56:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA11456; Mon, 2 May 1994 16:56:13 GMT Received: from cs.umb.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA11449; Mon, 2 May 1994 09:55:01 -0700 Received: from terminus.cs.umb.edu by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA20170 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 2 May 1994 12:55:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199405021655.AA20170@cs.umb.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Posts about Majordomo (use majordomo-users@greatcircle.com) Date: Mon, 02 May 1994 12:55:39 -0400 From: "John P. Rouillard" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just saw another question on majordomo operation on this list. It occured to me that people may not know about majordomo-users@greatcircle.com Majordomo-users is a much better forum in which to post messages about operating majordomo. The full list of majordomo releated mailing lists is given in the README for Majordomo 1.90 (which is still in the beta 2 release): 4.0 Mailing Lists/Support There are four mailing lists at GreatCircle.COM, Majordomo-Users - for discussions on using Majordomo Majordomo-Announce - for announcements of new releases Majordomo-Workers - for people interested in development of Majordomo. Majordomo-Docs - for people interested in development of documentation for Majordomo. To subscribe to any of the lists above, send an appropriate "subscribe" command to "Majordomo@GreatCircle.COM". Also at greatcircle.com is the list-managers mailing list. General topics on managing lists including, what email headers should be rewritten, list policies, how to handle problems with users at sites, issues with the size of lists etc. Questions that pertain to operating majordomo DO NOT belong on this list. Use majordomo-users instead. -- John John Rouillard Special Projects Volunteer University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu (preferred) Boston, MA, (617) 287-6480 =============================================================================== My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions. From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 21:18:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA13620; Mon, 2 May 1994 21:18:30 GMT Received: from unpc.queernet.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA13614; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:18:20 -0700 Received: by unpc.queernet.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0py5Nw-00014jC; Mon, 2 May 94 14:18 PDT Message-Id: To: James Cook cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 02 May 1994 07:50:10 -0700. Date: Mon, 02 May 1994 14:18:28 -0700 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Some professionals, like attorneys, accountants, and private > investigators have to be careful that a question or comment in a post is > not correlated with their name or firm name in a manner/degree which may > compromise a client's confidentiality and privacy interests. That is > their professional and lawful duty. Anonymity may be a good means of > posing a question in an open group without violating professional, legal, > and client duties. I think these are just some examples among many where > anonymity is perfectly reasonable. > > Another example is the practice in some companies to set up email type > conferences where the managers and employees share opinions on a blind > basis so that no one is shy to post frank opinions due to differences in > authority levels. In all of the examples you list, where anonymity is at the choice of each user, an unfair advantage is given to those who *choose* to be anonymous. In a totally anonymous community, with no imbalance, it is a useful tool, as in the blind-conference idea you list. > I don't think anonymity is inherently evil. But selective, irresponsible anonymity in a non-anonymous community is an open invitation for abuse. --- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy: the refusal of joy." -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Mon May 2 21:45:07 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA13715; Mon, 2 May 1994 21:45:07 GMT Received: from netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA13707; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:44:59 -0700 Received: by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id OAA17895; Mon, 2 May 1994 14:46:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 14:46:15 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: who command (some general comments) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 May 1994, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > In all of the examples you list, where anonymity is at the choice > of each user, an unfair advantage is given to those who *choose* > to be anonymous. In a totally anonymous community, with no imbalance, > it is a useful tool, as in the blind-conference idea you list. > In my personal view, anonymity abused is the problem which goes back to character, good manners, courtesy, respect, reasonableness. It is not the anonymity in and of itself which creates a problem. The evil is in the abuse of the doer, or in the eye of the beholder, or both. Reasonable people can decide to participate in a "community" in which selective, self-selected anonymity is optional, and benefit from the improved communication and exchange of ideas which that comfort may give. I like the idea of expecting good things from people, without becoming an utter fool in the process. > > I don't think anonymity is inherently evil. > > But selective, irresponsible anonymity in a non-anonymous community > is an open invitation for abuse. By definition...."irresponsible.....anonymity" And by definition...."responsible anonymity" in a non-anonymous community is not an abuse. I think that in general it's an option that can work well within certain groups of responsible people, and will fail in the midst of irresponsible, insensitive people. From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 09:53:15 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA27630; Wed, 4 May 1994 16:44:53 GMT Received: from spsgate.sps.mot.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA27609; Wed, 4 May 1994 09:43:43 -0700 Received: from mogate (mogate.sps.mot.com) by spsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1 10/25/93) id AA26837; Wed, 4 May 94 09:43:56 MST Received: from motsps by mogate (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.0) id AA06248; Wed, 4 May 94 09:43:55 MST Received: from risc.sps.mot.com by motsps (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.1) id AA21275; Wed, 4 May 94 09:43:54 MST Received: from akamai.sps.mot.com by risc.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA22996; Wed, 4 May 94 11:44:15 CDT Received: by akamai.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16129; Wed, 4 May 94 11:43:51 CDT From: jjoy@akamai.sps.mot.com (Jennifer Joy) Message-Id: <9405041643.AA16129@akamai.sps.mot.com> Subject: hate to bring this up... To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 4 May 94 11:43:50 CDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11b] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I hate to broach this subject again, but a list of which I am a member has this policy (?!) ... DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH DIAL-UP SERVICES SUCH AS COMPUSERVE, DELPHI AND AMERICA-ON-LINE THIS LIST IS NOT AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS OF SUCH SERVICES. [gee, you don't have to yell] Combine this with: -threatening not to add anymore members -the fact we already have compuserve, aol members, etc. guess they were grandfathered -the owner is an ex-grad student trying to admin from afar -continuous complaints about administrative load This doesn't seem like conscientious list management to me. In my opinion, he started something for him and his friends and now it has grown to 300+ people and he can't handle it. He manages it without tools (and will not switch to listserv, majordomo, etc.). Yes, I even offered to do the list! I guess mailing lists are a service and the administrator is free to do as they will, and if I don't like it, I don't have to be a part of it. I feel this list will crash and burn soon, but consider it yet another snapshot of the Internet. It speaks to a need for list standardization (at least this list has a -request...I'm on one with none!), a code of ethics for administrators (lists are not your personal playground), and the problems of growth. No more commentary on service-provider discrimination, please, I think that went far enough last time! :-) Constructive comments, how to deal with bizarro list managers, etc. ... that might be ok, or email. jennifer -- Jennifer Joy sys/net admin Motorola/RISC HW Austin,TX jjoy@risc.sps.mot.com 512.891.8561 fax:512.891.3890 pgr:933-7333 #898561 From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 17:05:34 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA27835; Wed, 4 May 1994 17:05:34 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA27828; Wed, 4 May 1994 10:05:24 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id NAA20793; Wed, 4 May 1994 13:06:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199405041706.NAA20793@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 13:06:10 EDT In-Reply-To: jjoy@akamai.sps.mot.com (Jennifer Joy) "hate to bring this up..." (May 4, 11:43am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: jjoy@akamai.sps.mot.com (Jennifer Joy), list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: hate to bring this up... Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > This doesn't seem like conscientious list management to me. In my > opinion, he started something for him and his friends and now it has > grown to 300+ people and he can't handle it. He manages it without > tools (and will not switch to listserv, majordomo, etc.). > Yes, I even offered to do the list! What was the response? Why not just start your own? --Mike From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 17:36:15 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA28200; Wed, 4 May 1994 17:36:15 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA28194; Wed, 4 May 1994 10:36:02 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA16976; Wed, 4 May 94 10:37:55 MST Message-Id: <9405041737.AA16976@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 10:37:56 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: I don't get it Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm starting to wonder if there's any point at all to FAQs. Monday I sent the how-to-join-and-how-to-leave FAQ to my list (It was supposed to go out on the first of the month via a cron job, but I had changed some permissions for myself for posting....). Since then--less than two days!--I've had a half-dozen or so people send messages to the list saying, "I'm leaving for the summer. Could somebody please take me off this list?" Aargh! ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 17:59:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA28521; Wed, 4 May 1994 17:59:18 GMT Received: from netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA28515; Wed, 4 May 1994 10:59:11 -0700 Received: by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id LAA25492; Wed, 4 May 1994 11:00:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 11:00:41 -0700 (PDT) From: James Cook Subject: Re: hate to bring this up... To: Jennifer Joy cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405041643.AA16129@akamai.sps.mot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 4 May 1994, Jennifer Joy wrote: > > This doesn't seem like conscientious list management to me. In my > opinion, he started something for him and his friends and now it has > grown to 300+ people and he can't handle it. He manages it without > tools (and will not switch to listserv, majordomo, etc.). If he started it for for the benefit and pleasure of himself and his friends and their personal interests, why shouldn't he retain the discretion to handle things the way he sees best? The software and infrastructure to create lists may be public domain. But I don't see how it necessarily follows that an individual's right to begin and maintain a list according to personally selected issues and policies is sacrificed by investing time to develop a special interest group/list/discussion forum. If members of the list don't like it's evolution, they can quit or start their own as a remedy. > I guess mailing lists are a service and the administrator is free > to do as they will, and if I don't like it, I don't have to be a part > of it. I would guess this depends on the list. One established expressly as a public service may be different than one established by someone desiring dialogue with a selective group of people on selective topics, operate privately and private expense and inconvenience. James From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 18:14:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA28645; Wed, 4 May 1994 18:14:42 GMT Received: from mordor.cs.du.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA28639; Wed, 4 May 1994 11:14:30 -0700 Received: from nyx10.cs.du.edu by mordor.cs.du.edu with SMTP id AA04391 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 4 May 1994 12:10:41 -0600 Received: by nyx10.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21976; Wed, 4 May 94 12:12:00 MDT From: rnovak@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Robert Novak) Message-Id: <9405041812.AA21976@nyx10.cs.du.edu> X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver. The University has neither control over nor responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users. Subject: Re: I don't get it To: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 12:11:59 -0600 (MDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <9405041737.AA16976@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> from "Ben.Goren@asu.edu" at May 4, 94 10:37:56 am Reply-To: rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1745 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Ben.Goren@asu.edu" says something like: > > I'm starting to wonder if there's any point at all to FAQs. > Monday I sent the how-to-join-and-how-to-leave FAQ to my list (It was > supposed to go out on the first of the month via a cron job, but I had > changed some permissions for myself for posting....). Since then--less than > two days!--I've had a half-dozen or so people send messages to the list > saying, "I'm leaving for the summer. Could somebody please take me off this > list?" I expect the same... I just posted to 3 of my lists about how to unsubscribe, and how to find alternative summer network access. On one list, this message will have a message tacked on the end (as with all other list messages) telling where to send unsub requests. I think the only ways to keep clueless users from doing stuff like this, barring the deluge onto the internet of lots of users *with* a clue, is to (1) set up an interceptor to keep sub/unsub stuff from going to the list... not a perfect solution, but easier than (2) moderating the list manually. I have part of (1) in place on a couple of my lists... it usually works. However, I've also found lots of people who want to UNSUSCRIBE or USUSCIBE or UNSCRIBE... and one user who wrote me privately to ask what unsubscribing was. Just gotta either be patient, or find someone else to run the list *sigh* ... anybody want ten mailing lists? :-) just joking. Rob -- Robert Novak (rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu) . Manager: tiffany, perfect-beat, slade, "You get elaborate with your lies, . tiger, galaxy, gpdg, galaxy variants Computer dreams slip through your . GM: galaxy, g/2, galactica, blind eyes / Baby you like to be the king of paradise / So sweet and ruthless." -TD From list-managers-owner Wed May 4 21:45:43 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA29688; Wed, 4 May 1994 21:45:43 GMT Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA29682; Wed, 4 May 1994 14:45:33 -0700 From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Received: from Tux.Music.ASU.Edu by Tux.Music.ASU.Edu (5.64/A/UX-3.00) id AA17631; Wed, 4 May 94 14:47:24 MST Message-Id: <9405042147.AA17631@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> X-Sender: ben@localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 14:47:24 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: I *really* don't get it Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Consider these two messages--and the date stamps: >Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 11:28:16 -0700 >From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu >Subject: HELP! WE'RE BEING INVADED! >Sender: Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia discussion group >To: Multiple recipients of list SINFONIA >Reply-To: Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia discussion group >X-To: sinfonia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu > >THE RUSSKIES ARE COMING! THE BOMBS ARE FALLING! WE'RE DOMED! AND DOOMED, TOO! > >Well, OK. Maybe not. > >I *hope* I've got everybody's attention now. If so, I implore of you, >*read* the rest of this note. Don't just delete it. Don't assume that it >[. . . .] And [information deleted to protect the guilty]: >Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 16:02:38 -0400 >From: Xxxx Xxxxx >Subject: Re: Disconnect for Summer >Sender: Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia discussion group >To: Multiple recipients of list SINFONIA >Reply-To: Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia discussion group >X-To: Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia discussion group > >X-Cc: Multiple recipients of list SINFONIA > > >Please disconnect me for the summer. > >[signature deleted] ---- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Protect your privacy; oppose Clipper. Write to me for info. Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP 2.3a public key. From list-managers-owner Thu May 5 11:30:45 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA03332; Thu, 5 May 1994 11:30:45 GMT Received: from lokkur.dexter.mi.us by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA03326; Thu, 5 May 1994 04:30:35 -0700 Received: (scs@localhost) by lokkur.dexter.mi.us (8.6.7/8.6.5) id HAA05808; Thu, 5 May 1994 07:29:35 -0400 From: Steve Simmons Message-Id: <199405051129.HAA05808@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> Subject: Re: hate to bring this up... To: jjoy@akamai.sps.mot.com (Jennifer Joy) Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 07:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405041643.AA16129@akamai.sps.mot.com> from "Jennifer Joy" at May 4, 94 11:43:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1419 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I guess mailing lists are a service and the administrator is free >to do as they will, and if I don't like it, I don't have to be a part >of it. . . So true, so true . . . >Constructive comments, how to >deal with bizarro list managers, etc. ... that might be ok, or email. Speaking as a sysadmin who's feeling very old and grey this morning... The days of the bizarro list manager are numbered. For the person who owns his own site, volume will get him. When 100,000 people a day subscribe to your list because it looked interesting when announced inadvertently in alt.children.of.mick.jagger, the incompetent list manager will be out of the the biz instantly. For the person who doesn't own his own site (eg, AOL, CompuServe, me, you), the site managers can't afford to be laisse-faire any more (did I spell that right? Let it stand...) At Msen we will shortly allow users to have mailing lists as part of our low-end service package. The users are told (not asked) they will manage with majordomo, and will be given a boiler-plate policy doc to mod and send to the list. This includes regular sending of instructions on doing subscribe and unsubscribe, etc. Any failure to do this results in the list being pulled. By forcing our users to use one standard tool and boiler place policy, we should be able to eliminate many of the problems discussed on this list. And 99.9% of the bizarro list managers. From list-managers-owner Thu May 5 17:38:02 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA05306; Thu, 5 May 1994 17:38:02 GMT Received: from liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA05300; Thu, 5 May 1994 10:37:45 -0700 Received: from liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk via Local channel id <22190-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>; Thu, 5 May 1994 18:37:37 +0100 Subject: Re: I don't get it To: Ben.Goren@asu.edu Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 18:37:36 +0100 (BST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405041737.AA16976@Tux.Music.ASU.Edu> from "Ben.Goren@asu.edu" at May 4, 94 10:37:56 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 875 From: Alan Thew Message-ID: <"liverbird..192:05.04.94.17.37.38"@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the last mail, Ben.Goren@asu.edu wrote: > > I'm starting to wonder if there's any point at all to FAQs. > > Monday I sent the how-to-join-and-how-to-leave FAQ to my list (It was > supposed to go out on the first of the month via a cron job, but I had > changed some permissions for myself for posting....). Since then--less than > two days!--I've had a half-dozen or so people send messages to the list > saying, "I'm leaving for the summer. Could somebody please take me off this > list?" > ... Why is it that whenever things like this are mailed telling people exactly how they should do things, they feel prompted to do the opposite? :-( This is where "Reply-To"s that point to the list can really fall down.... -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!liv!alan.thew Tel: +44 51 794-3735 University of Liverpool, Computing Services Fax: +44 51 794-3759 From list-managers-owner Fri May 6 13:26:12 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA11148; Fri, 6 May 1994 13:26:12 GMT Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA11142; Fri, 6 May 1994 06:26:05 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 May 94 9:27:20 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Sites who deny -request addresses Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9405060927.aa01507@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here's a msg I got today, with names changed to protect, well, whoever. I'd recently set up a list entry to a local redistribution at that site. This occurred as a result of someone on that local redist trying to mail me. Tell me (or the list) what you think of it. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer ----- Forwarded message # 1: To: info-labview-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 07:47:35 Organization: [deleted] From: [deleted] Dear list manager, The University of XXXXXX, dept of XXXX XXX has a policy of preventing mail to "-request' addresses to save ourselves the pain of trying to get users deleted once they have left us. This is a particular problem with automatic mailing list managers. We prefer to set up local mail relays for users in our dept which the systems admin staff can control. As a consequence one of our users was unable to reply to your recent message which rather than coming from you as an individual came from the address info-labview-request@pica.army.mil. I am certain we are not the only site to adopt this policy, so you may prefer to send messages to the list from your own 'real person' mailing address. Anyway here is a copy of his reply.......... [deleted for brevity's sake] ----- End of forwarded messages From list-managers-owner Fri May 6 13:39:38 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA11205; Fri, 6 May 1994 13:39:38 GMT Received: from cs.umb.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA11196; Fri, 6 May 1994 06:39:25 -0700 Received: from cs.umb.edu by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA20340 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 6 May 1994 09:39:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199405061339.AA20340@cs.umb.edu> To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Sites who deny -request addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 May 1994 09:27:20 EDT." <9405060927.aa01507@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 09:39:45 -0400 From: "John P. Rouillard" Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <9405060927.aa01507@fsm-1.pica.army.mil>, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer writes: > Here's a msg I got today, with names changed to protect, well, whoever. I'd > recently set up a list entry to a local redistribution at that site. This > occurred as a result of someone on that local redist trying to mail me. Tell > me (or the list) what you think of it. > ----- Forwarded message # 1: > > To: info-labview-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL > Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 07:47:35 > Organization: [deleted] > From: [deleted] > > Dear list manager, > > The University of XXXXXX, dept of XXXX XXX has a policy of preventing > mail to "-request' addresses to save ourselves the pain of trying to get > users deleted once they have left us. This is a particular problem with > automatic mailing list managers. We prefer to set up local mail relays > for users in our dept which the systems admin staff can control. I guess they prevent mail to all majordomo's and listservers etc too? > As a consequence one of our users was unable to reply to your recent > message which rather than coming from you as an individual came from the > address info-labview-request@pica.army.mil. > > I am certain we are not the only site to adopt this policy, so you may > prefer to send messages to the list from your own 'real person' mailing > address. Gee the policy isn't bad but the enforcment of it is really brain dead. If they aren't the only site, they are darn near close to the only site. Just one note, I usually have my lists use a from address of owner- or -owner as opposed to -request, but that is because I use an automated robot (majordomo) at the request address, and I don't want to have mail going there by accident. -- John John Rouillard Special Projects Volunteer University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu (preferred) Boston, MA, (617) 287-6480 =============================================================================== My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions. From list-managers-owner Fri May 6 13:58:46 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA11246; Fri, 6 May 1994 13:58:46 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA11240; Fri, 6 May 1994 06:58:37 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id JAA26716; Fri, 6 May 1994 09:57:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199405061357.JAA26716@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Sites who deny -request addresses In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 May 1994 09:27:20 EDT." <9405060927.aa01507@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 09:57:55 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The University of XXXXXX, dept of XXXX XXX has a policy of preventing > mail to "-request' addresses to save ourselves the pain of trying to get > users deleted once they have left us. This is a particular problem with > automatic mailing list managers. We prefer to set up local mail relays > for users in our dept which the systems admin staff can control. I think this is insane. First of all, not all -request addresses are for mailing lists, and even for mailing lists, -request addresses are sometimes used for other things (e.g. general queries about the list) than just for subscriptions. Second, the -request addresses are most often used with NON-automatic mailing list managers. Do they also block mail to listserv@.* and majordomo@.*? Third, my experience is that local mail relays are a BAD IDEA, because they usually aren't set up to bounce to the local administrator, and when they cause problems they are a royal pain to track down. (They gain little in efficiency because all of the recipients at that site get packaged up in the same envelope anyway.) I don't let local relays subscribe to my lists until they assure me that they are resetting the envelope address. I don't see what the problem is with needing to delete users when they leave. On my lists, if the message bounces two or three times with "user unknown" or some such message, the user gets automatically deleted without the site administrator having anything to do with it. Keith From list-managers-owner Fri May 6 14:48:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA11463; Fri, 6 May 1994 14:48:44 GMT Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA11457; Fri, 6 May 1994 07:48:36 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 May 94 10:49:52 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Sites who deny -request addresses Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9405061049.aa02436@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here's the response I got from the unnamed admin in question. I'm going to wait until next week but right now I'm thinking of sending a msg to the redistribution telling them of this and that I'm yanking their subscription. And then yanking it. Let them go beat on him/her for a bit. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer ----- Forwarded message # 1: To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 14:21:33 Organization: [...] From: [...] Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer writes: > >Hmmm. You are the only site to do this that I'm aware of. Why would you do >this? (I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.) You run a local list >which I pipe labview stuff to, called info-labview-relay and it's >administered from (perhaps) info-labview-request@your.site. What harm >is there in allowing users to mail to info-labview-request@my.site? If it's >something you should know about, I'll forward it back to you - no problem! There's no problem with a well run list - but we have had previous experiences where either it took months of hassling to get a user off a list once they had subscribed, or where an automatic list manager refused to remove a user once they had left and their acount had been deleted. We actually had to re-create the account to send a mail to get a dead user off a list (alternatively you have to fake mail - but we weren't wise to that one at the time). After seeing the time it took a policy was made to use local relays. >FWIW: info-labview-request IS the 'real person' who runs this list. You >cannot mail to me in any other fashion (well, you can, but not regarding >labview, and I'm not going to publicize my other account name - altho it's >no real secret). This is a dedicated account for this purpose (I login as >user labview to administer it). Fair point..... guess my user will just have to suffer. This is the first time we have had any problem with this policy. ----- End of forwarded messages From list-managers-owner Fri May 6 17:24:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA15205; Fri, 6 May 1994 23:58:16 GMT Received: from lokkur.dexter.mi.us by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA15182; Fri, 6 May 1994 16:57:51 -0700 Received: (scs@localhost) by lokkur.dexter.mi.us (8.6.7/8.6.5) id JAA17352 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 6 May 1994 09:06:16 -0400 From: Steve Simmons Message-Id: <199405061306.JAA17352@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> Subject: Rewriting Unsub/Admin Data To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers Mailing List) Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 09:05:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3190 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Advance apologies if this has already been covered; I'm mostly a lurker and saver on this list 'cause I know it's going to be incredibly important to me one of these days real soon... Both as a list manager and a user of lists, my #1 problem is exploders. Don't get me wrong, secondary exploders are great. But the problems they generate can be difficult. The most frustrating unsub request is from someone who is two or three exploders down. He doesn't remember how he got on the "local" list; it may be something local three employers back where the ever-reliant admin knows where he lives. This makes baked-in admin data not just useless, but actively misleading. In addition, it requires too much knowledge of how mailing lists work for the end user (ie, more than zero). I'd like to propose a mechanism and a very small, very tight RFC. The mechanism is a new set of headers - List-Unsubscribe and List-Admin. (We can start using them now as an experiment by putting X- forms if we like.) The header would be something like List-Unsubscribe: listname@host List-Admin: admin-name@host Listname identifies the list management contact, dependant part will vary with the list processing software in user. For example, this list might do: List-Unsubscribe: majordomo@greatcircle.com send message unsubscribe list-managers List-Admin: brent@greatcircle.com "don't bother me with trivia" For other types, it might be List-Unsubscribe: comics-request@world.std.com send message unsubscribe List-Admin: jean_gray@phoenix.com The goal is not to provide a message for a human being, but rather a rewritable header which exploders can adjust appropriately. Thus for a local exploder of listmanagers the header might get rewritten to List-Unsubscribe: majordomo@local.com send message unsubscribe list-managers-local List-Admin: joe@local.com "don't bother Brent with trivia" Once this is in place, the next step is to make mail user agents sensitive to it. MH/exmh would be trivial, elm wouldn't be too hard, can't speak for other systems. The MUAs would (optionally) flag the incoming message with a marker meaning `this message is from a list' and enable two commands: contact the admin, and unsubscribe. This means the List-Unsubscribe in particular must be well-formed and mechanically parsable. A more complex majordomo request might be List-Unsubscribe: majordomo@greatcircle.com send message 'unsubscribe list-managers' subject 'Please unsubscribe %U' %U gets replaced with the user name. A more complex -reply type might be List-Unsubscribe: comics-request@world.std.com send message 'unsub comix' subject 'Please unsubscribe %U from comix' The above is off the top of the head (ie, not thought thru very deeply). Execution method -- getting a full RFC on list management appears to be a hopeless task. But I'll bet we *could* get agreement on this fairly narrow topic. I can hack elm, header-generation is something most of us understand. In short, we could have the experiment in place in a couple of weeks. I'll edit the RFC unless someone wants to step forward. Comments? From list-managers-owner Sat May 7 22:00:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA20654; Sat, 7 May 1994 22:00:26 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA06054; Thu, 5 May 1994 12:17:13 -0700 Received: from stonewall.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id ab11337; 5 May 94 20:02 GMT-60:00 From: Nigel Whitfield Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 19:03:28 BST Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Internet books and resources Message-ID: <9405051903.aa26685@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've been plagued by incorrect subscriptions to uk-motss. There are two common types. One is a message that says SUB SEX Real Name which appears to come from some database that sends automatic requests, and the other is SUB TRANSGEN which comes from people who have read The Net Guide, published by Random House. I don't have a copy of this book, but a few people have pointed me to it. Does anyone else here have incorrect entries in it? Nigel. -- [Nigel Whitfield nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk] [For details on the uk-motss mailing list mail uk-motss-request@pyra.co.uk] [***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****] From list-managers-owner Sat May 7 22:00:28 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA20656; Sat, 7 May 1994 22:00:28 GMT Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id NAA06510; Thu, 5 May 1994 13:09:22 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA05943 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for greatcircle.com!list-managers); Thu, 5 May 1994 14:50:51 -0500 Received: by taronga.taronga.com (smail2.5) id AA21966; 5 May 94 14:47:12 CDT (Thu) Subject: Stupid Mailing List Tricks To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 5 May 94 14:47:11 CDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Message-Id: <9405051447.AA21966@taronga.taronga.com> From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk It's funny some of the trends with mailing lists. Sending a reminder on how to unsubscribe results in a spate of unsubscribe messages to the posting address. But you know, all you did was remind these people they need to unsubscribe, but they don't bother to read the message to find out *how*. It amazes me that people use the request address to subscribe, but can't seem to remember to use it to unsubscribe. A few days ago I got a message that said "set endorphins nomail." Except endorphins is a moderated list, moderated by hand (by me). In the intro letter I send out it states: "I'm not a listserv so please don't send me any listserv commands." Sometime ago I got something sent to the ranger-list posting address saying "subscribe ranger-list." I wrote back informing this person of the -request address and asking them to please not send me any more listserv commands, as I'm not a listserv. The response to that was to get a message from the same person saying "unsubscribe ranger-list." We've received mail addressed to "listserv@taronga.com" and "majordomo@taronga.com." They bounce of course, as they're both invalid addresses. Confuses me as to my knowledge, there is nothing out there on the net advertising either of these as valid addresses on taronga. I get listserv commands sent to *my* address (arielle@taronga.com) as well as the request/posting addresses. I dunno, this general trend of thinking that all mailing lists are managed by listservs seems to be a fairly recent one, within the last year and a half. Or maybe I just was lucky the first year or so I ran my lists and missed the fun. Part of the confusion seems to be from people thinking that "listserv" and "mailing list" are synonymous terms. Oh, well. The sub/unsub problem is an ongoing thing and is why I moderated my second list (an abusive user was why I moderated the first one). -- Stephanie da Silva PO Box 720711 arielle@taronga.com Houston, TX 77272 Moderator, rec.food.recipes 713 568 0381 From list-managers-owner Sat May 7 22:41:26 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA21016; Sat, 7 May 1994 22:41:26 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA20556; Sat, 7 May 1994 14:56:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199405072156.OAA20556@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: Steve Simmons cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers Mailing List) Subject: Re: Rewriting Unsub/Admin Data In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 6 May 1994 09:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 14:56:24 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Steve Simmons writes: # I'd like to propose a mechanism and a very small, very tight RFC. # The mechanism is a new set of headers - List-Unsubscribe and List-Admin. # (We can start using them now as an experiment by putting X- forms if we # like.) The header would be something like # # List-Unsubscribe: listname@host # List-Admin: admin-name@host # # Listname identifies the list management contact, dependant part will # vary with the list processing software in user. For example, this # list might do: # # List-Unsubscribe: majordomo@greatcircle.com send message unsubscribe list-managers # List-Admin: brent@greatcircle.com "don't bother me with trivia" # # For other types, it might be # # List-Unsubscribe: comics-request@world.std.com send message unsubscribe # List-Admin: jean_gray@phoenix.com One suggestion: make the RHS of the header an RFC822-parseable address. I.e., mark the comments as such. For example: List-Unsubscribe: majordomo@greatcircle.com (send message unsubscribe list-managers) List-Admin: brent@greatcircle.com (don't bother me with trivia) This will make it that much easier for MUA authors to use the headers: they'll be able to simply paste-in the RHS, without having to parse it. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Sun May 8 01:36:31 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA22000; Sun, 8 May 1994 01:36:31 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA21994; Sat, 7 May 1994 18:36:04 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id VAA29339; Sat, 7 May 1994 21:35:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199405080135.VAA29339@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Stupid Mailing List Tricks In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 May 1994 14:47:11 CDT." <9405051447.AA21966@taronga.taronga.com> Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 21:35:16 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't get insulted when people send me listserv commands, as long as they send them to the -request address. Unless they ask for something unusual, they get back an automatic reply from a shell script anyway. For people who deal with lots of different lists, it's a lot of trouble for them to remember how to unsubscribe from each one. I'm surprised that they do as well as they do. I'm not really surprised when people send mail to {listserv,majordomo}@domain.where.list.comes.from If they use LISTSERVs where you come from (like BITNET), that's the de facto standard way. The -request address convention comes from a different community. As the Internet grows, several different communities, each with its own conventions, are being merged. So what we are seeing is due to cultural differences, nothing more. Keith Moore p.s. I recently sent out a message to one of my lists reminding people of how to unsubscribe, taking great care to emphasise that the address was foo-REQUEST@cs.utk.edu (spelled as it is here, with an extra "note the -REQUEST" part added.) That was several weeks ago, and I'm still getting messages addressed to foo-REQUEST@cs.utk.edu (with the REQUEST part uppercased, as in my message to the list). I think they got the point :-) From list-managers-owner Sun May 8 04:08:06 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA22368; Sun, 8 May 1994 04:08:06 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA22021; Sat, 7 May 1994 18:48:18 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id VAA29355; Sat, 7 May 1994 21:47:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199405080147.VAA29355@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Brent Chapman cc: Steve Simmons , list-managers@greatcircle.com (List Managers Mailing List), moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Rewriting Unsub/Admin Data In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 May 1994 14:56:24 PDT." <199405072156.OAA20556@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 21:47:50 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Steve Simmons writes: # I'd like to propose a mechanism and a very small, very tight RFC. # The mechanism is a new set of headers - List-Unsubscribe and List-Admin. # (We can start using them now as an experiment by putting X- forms if we # like.) The header would be something like at one time I suggested something similar, except that the notation was flexible enough to indicate what text you should send to the list server, to accomodate different software. so for na-net you could do: List-unsubscribe: rcpt=na.remove@na-net.ornl.gov; body="firstname: ${firstname}\nlastname: ${lastname}\nemail: ${subscriber}" whereas for listserv it would be List-unsubscribe: rcpt=listserv@foo.bar.com; from="${subscriber}"; body="unsub ${subscriber}" and for a human-maintained list it would be List-unsubscribe: rcpt=foo-request@foo.bar.com; from="${subscriber}"; body="please remove me from the ${listname} list!" finally, there were also methods for subscriptions and change-of-address, so you could publish them in a globally-accessible database (i.e. not just for people who are already on a list!) yes, I think the time is right for such a thing. if nothing else it would help improve the accuracy of the various service providers' auto-subscribe interfaces, since the list maintainers could just advertise their list data (say, to comp.mail.lists?) and the service providers could just parse it. Keith From list-managers-owner Sun May 8 04:10:29 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA22397; Sun, 8 May 1994 04:10:29 GMT Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA22390; Sat, 7 May 1994 21:10:23 -0700 Message-Id: <199405080410.VAA22390@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> To: Keith Moore cc: Steve Simmons , list-managers@greatcircle.com (List Managers Mailing List) Subject: Re: Rewriting Unsub/Admin Data In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 07 May 1994 21:47:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 07 May 1994 21:10:22 -0700 From: Brent Chapman Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Keith Moore writes: # Steve Simmons writes: # # # I'd like to propose a mechanism and a very small, very tight RFC. # # The mechanism is a new set of headers - List-Unsubscribe and List-Admin. # # (We can start using them now as an experiment by putting X- forms if we # # like.) The header would be something like # # at one time I suggested something similar, except that the notation # was flexible enough to indicate what text you should send to the # list server, to accomodate different software. so for na-net you # could do: # # List-unsubscribe: rcpt=na.remove@na-net.ornl.gov; # body="firstname: ${firstname}\nlastname: ${lastname}\nemail: ${subscriber}" # # whereas for listserv it would be # # List-unsubscribe: rcpt=listserv@foo.bar.com; from="${subscriber}"; # body="unsub ${subscriber}" # # and for a human-maintained list it would be # # List-unsubscribe: rcpt=foo-request@foo.bar.com; from="${subscriber}"; # body="please remove me from the ${listname} list!" # # finally, there were also methods for subscriptions and change-of-address, # so you could publish them in a globally-accessible database (i.e. not # just for people who are already on a list!) # # yes, I think the time is right for such a thing. if nothing else it # would help improve the accuracy of the various service providers' # auto-subscribe interfaces, since the list maintainers could just # advertise their list data (say, to comp.mail.lists?) and the service # providers could just parse it. Is there any way we can merge all of this (subscribe, unsubscribe, whatever) into one multi-line header, and keep it under 1024 bytes total? I think we'll face less resistance from MUA authors if it's only one header, instead of N headers. -Brent -- Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | Call or email for info about Brent@GreatCircle.COM | 1057 West Dana Street | upcoming Internet Security +1 415 962 0841 | Mountain View, CA 94041 | Firewalls Tutorial dates From list-managers-owner Sun May 8 04:42:30 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA22620; Sun, 8 May 1994 04:42:30 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id VAA22590; Sat, 7 May 1994 21:37:38 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id AAA29610; Sun, 8 May 1994 00:37:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199405080437.AAA29610@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: Brent Chapman cc: Keith Moore , Steve Simmons , list-managers@greatcircle.com (List Managers Mailing List) Subject: Re: Rewriting Unsub/Admin Data In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 May 1994 21:10:22 PDT." <199405080410.VAA22390@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Date: Sun, 08 May 1994 00:35:21 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there any way we can merge all of this (subscribe, unsubscribe, > whatever) into one multi-line header, and keep it under 1024 bytes > total? I think we'll face less resistance from MUA authors if it's > only one header, instead of N headers. I'm sure it could be done, though it might start to get pretty long. I have a slight preference for separate headers myself. It doesn't save on bandwidth any to put things in the same header, just makes it harder to parse as far as I can tell. Also, you wouldn't have to include all possible list-* headers in every message sent to the list -- maybe just the list-unsubscribe one. Keith From list-managers-owner Sun May 8 18:37:34 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA25576; Sun, 8 May 1994 18:37:34 GMT Received: from ftp.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA25570; Sun, 8 May 1994 11:37:27 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by ftp.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id OAA12818; Sun, 8 May 1994 14:38:19 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA21397; Sun, 8 May 1994 14:38:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 14:38:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: Stupid Mailing List Tricks To: Stephanie da Silva Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405051447.AA21966@taronga.taronga.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > I dunno, this general trend of thinking that all mailing lists are managed > by listservs seems to be a fairly recent one, within the last year and a half. > Or maybe I just was lucky the first year or so I ran my lists and missed the > fun. Part of the confusion seems to be from people thinking that "listserv" > and "mailing list" are synonymous terms. Oh, well. The sub/unsub problem is > an ongoing thing and is why I moderated my second list (an abusive user was > why I moderated the first one). Must be you've been lucky up until now. However, there is progress in that now they are getting used to the idea of majordomo as well as listserv. After much patient explaining about how to sub & unsub from my list, I got one back (to my address) saying: subscribe majordomo *sigh*........ -Sharon From list-managers-owner Mon May 9 14:39:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA00527; Mon, 9 May 1994 14:39:24 GMT Received: from lobby2b.ti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA00519; Mon, 9 May 1994 07:39:13 -0700 Received: from lesol1.dseg.ti.com by lobby2b.ti.com with ESMTP (8.6.8.1/LAI-3.2) id JAA28020; Mon, 9 May 1994 09:36:39 -0500 Received: from madison.dseg.ti.com (madison.dseg.ti.com [128.247.237.136]) by lesol1.dseg.ti.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA01126 for ; Mon, 9 May 1994 09:38:22 -0500 Received: by madison.dseg.ti.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18596; Mon, 9 May 94 09:38:20 CDT Date: Mon, 9 May 94 09:38:20 CDT From: ewing@madison.dseg.ti.com (Scott Ewing) Message-Id: <9405091438.AA18596@madison.dseg.ti.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Stupid Mailing List Tricks Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk It seems to me that most mailing lists are being handled with software, so the first priority is to get everybody dealing with these via listserv commands. Those of us (including myself) running lists manually should either install listserv (or majordomo) software or get use to handling listserv commands. It's not reasonable to expect people to remember unique sub/unsub methods for different lists. regards, scott ewing ewing@exas.dseg.ti.com > It's funny some of the trends with mailing lists. Sending a reminder on > how to unsubscribe results in a spate of unsubscribe messages to the > posting address. But you know, all you did was remind these people they > need to unsubscribe, but they don't bother to read the message to find > out *how*. It amazes me that people use the request address to subscribe, > but can't seem to remember to use it to unsubscribe. > > A few days ago I got a message that said "set endorphins nomail." Except > endorphins is a moderated list, moderated by hand (by me). In the intro > letter I send out it states: "I'm not a listserv so please don't send me > any listserv commands." Sometime ago I got something sent to the ranger-list > posting address saying "subscribe ranger-list." I wrote back informing this > person of the -request address and asking them to please not send me any more > listserv commands, as I'm not a listserv. The response to that was to get a > message from the same person saying "unsubscribe ranger-list." We've received > mail addressed to "listserv@taronga.com" and "majordomo@taronga.com." They > bounce of course, as they're both invalid addresses. Confuses me as to my > knowledge, there is nothing out there on the net advertising either of these > as valid addresses on taronga. I get listserv commands sent to *my* address > (arielle@taronga.com) as well as the request/posting addresses. > > I dunno, this general trend of thinking that all mailing lists are managed > by listservs seems to be a fairly recent one, within the last year and a half. > Or maybe I just was lucky the first year or so I ran my lists and missed the > fun. Part of the confusion seems to be from people thinking that "listserv" > and "mailing list" are synonymous terms. Oh, well. The sub/unsub problem is > an ongoing thing and is why I moderated my second list (an abusive user was > why I moderated the first one). > > > -- > Stephanie da Silva PO Box 720711 > arielle@taronga.com Houston, TX 77272 > Moderator, rec.food.recipes 713 568 0381 > From list-managers-owner Mon May 9 10:43:59 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA02241; Mon, 9 May 1994 17:40:23 GMT Received: from unpc.queernet.org by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA02218; Mon, 9 May 1994 10:40:00 -0700 Received: by unpc.queernet.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0q0ZJ8-00014xC; Mon, 9 May 94 10:39 PDT Message-Id: Date: Mon, 9 May 94 10:39 PDT From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) To: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Internet books and resources Newsgroups: list.list-managers In-Reply-To: <9405051903.aa26685@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> Organization: QueerNet Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In article <9405051903.aa26685@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> you write: >I've been plagued by incorrect subscriptions to uk-motss. There are two >common types. One is a message that says > >SUB SEX Real Name > >which appears to come from some database that sends automatic requests, and >the other is > >SUB TRANSGEN > >which comes from people who have read The Net Guide, published by Random >House. I don't have a copy of this book, but a few people have pointed me >to it. Does anyone else here have incorrect entries in it? Yup. gl-asb@queernet.org subscribers are told to tell our Majordomo to subscribe gl-asb end !! The author's address is MWOLFF@GO-NETGUIDE.COM Let him know what you think of his profiting off his inaccuracies and your extra work. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy: the refusal of joy." -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Tue May 10 02:36:25 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id CAA05047; Tue, 10 May 1994 02:36:25 GMT Received: from kaiwan.kaiwan.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA05041; Mon, 9 May 1994 19:36:12 -0700 Received: from localhost (spectrum@localhost) by kaiwan.kaiwan.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) id TAA21204; Mon, 9 May 1994 19:36:25 -0700 *** KAIWAN Internet Access *** To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: spectrum@kaiwan.com (Richard De A'Morelli) Subject: Re: Stupid Mailing List Tricks Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:44:29 -0500 Organization: Spectrum Universal, Los Angeles, CA Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9405051447.AA21966@taronga.taronga.com> Lines: 19 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I dunno, this general trend of thinking that all mailing lists are managed > by listservs seems to be a fairly recent one, within the last year and a half. As more and more "non-computer literate" folks come onto the Internet, we will see more and more of these things happenings. Partly because many simply aren;t familiar with the proper protocols. Another problem is that as mail volume increases on news groups and mailing lists, the sheer number of messages requires more time to wade through, and busy people will be more inclined to take short cuts; i.e., if UNSUB works on listservs, it will get the message across everywhere. > Or maybe I just was lucky the first year or so I ran my lists and missed the > fun. Part of the confusion seems to be from people thinking that "listserv" Yes, I think you were just lucky! What is going on now seems to be shaping up as the norm. Regards, Richard From list-managers-owner Tue May 10 22:25:21 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA11443; Tue, 10 May 1994 22:25:21 GMT Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA11437; Tue, 10 May 1994 15:25:11 -0700 Received: from toolz.UUCP by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.4.24) via UUCP id AA10337 ; Tue, 10 May 94 18:26:02 -0400 Received: by toolz (5.65/1.35) id AA27943; Tue, 10 May 94 17:14:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 May 94 17:14:18 -0400 From: todd%toolz.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu (Todd Merriman) Message-Id: <9405102114.AA27943@toolz> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: List Etiquette Guidelines Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Does anyone have a List Etiquette Guidelines document that I can send to all my new subscribers (some are very new to Internet)? | Todd Merriman - Software Toolz, Inc. +1 404 889 8264 / Maintainer of the | 8030 Pooles Mill Dr., Ball Ground, GA 30107 / Software Entrepreneur's | todd@toolz.atl.ga.us / Mailing List Anniversary of mass-produced RAMS. Football never the same since. From list-managers-owner Fri May 13 22:33:22 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id WAA08184; Fri, 13 May 1994 22:33:22 GMT Received: from homer.bethel.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id PAA08178; Fri, 13 May 1994 15:33:12 -0700 Received: from [140.88.2.27] by homer.bethel.edu with SMTP id AA27925 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 13 May 1994 17:33:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 17:33:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199405132233.AA27925@homer.bethel.edu> From: "Daniel E. Ritchie" Reply-To: "Daniel E. Ritchie" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Effective naming of new list Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk How have you found that proper naming of a new list helps it to become well known among the people who should know about it? 1. Should the name have a string of letters that can be easily guessed by people doing global searches of lists on the Internet? 2. Are "keywords" equally, or more, important? With whom does one store them? 3. I'm assuming I should contact the list "New List" to help get the word out about this list. But any other suggestions will be helpful. Background: I'm starting a new (listserv) list for people interested in the relationship between Christianity and Literature. The list will be affiliated with a long-time organization called "The Conference on Christianity and Literature." I'm trying to figure out whether to name it "ChrLit" (which seems inelegant) or "CCLnet" (which won't mean anything to the folks outside our organization whom I'd like to welcome to the list). I appreciate any suggestions. Dan Ritchie, Bethel College (MN) From list-managers-owner Fri May 13 23:19:37 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA08494; Fri, 13 May 1994 23:19:37 GMT Received: from remarque.berkeley.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA08487; Fri, 13 May 1994 16:19:28 -0700 Received: by remarque.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.31) id QAA25853; Fri, 13 May 1994 16:20:22 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 16:20:22 -0700 From: mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu (Michael C. Berch) Message-Id: <199405132320.QAA25853@remarque.berkeley.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Effective naming of new list Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Background: I'm starting a new (listserv) list for people interested in the > relationship between Christianity and Literature. The list will > be affiliated with a long-time organization called "The Conference > on Christianity and Literature." > I'm trying to figure out whether to name it "ChrLit" (which seems > inelegant) or "CCLnet" (which won't mean anything to the folks outside our > organization whom I'd like to welcome to the list). I appreciate any > suggestions. Does LISTSERV have a strict limit on the length of the list name? (Unfortunate if it does, unless it is just a limitation of underlying brain-damaged system software) If not, I suggest you name it as verbosely as possible. My Sinead O'Connor list is called jump-in-the-river (it's a song title), but 1) you can use the alias "jitr" if you want, and 2) I only have to deal with sendmail, not LISTSERV/BITNET. I'd suggest CHRISTIAN-LITERATURE if you can get away with it. Neither ChrLit or CCLNet tells anybody anything. (I supose I am the pot calling the keetle black,but there is a tradition of music lists going by obscure fanciful names. :-)) -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@remarque.berkeley.edu From list-managers-owner Sat May 14 00:21:56 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id AAA08695; Sat, 14 May 1994 00:21:56 GMT Received: from clsn1231.noble.mass.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA08689; Fri, 13 May 1994 17:21:46 -0700 Received: by clsn1231.noble.mass.edu (5.61/3.01) id AA00874; Fri, 13 May 94 20:21:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 20:12:08 -0500 (EST) From: Elizabeth Thomsen Subject: Re: Effective naming of new lists To: "Michael C. Berch" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199405132320.QAA25853@remarque.berkeley.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk However careful you are, you can run into problems. One of my lists is devoted to English author E.F. Benson, and I wanted to name it Lucia, after his most famous character. I thought this would be mildly fanciful and a little clever. But there is already a Lucia on the World, where I'm running the list, so I settled for the boring but safe Benson@world.std.com. Unfortunately, my list gets frequent messages for someone named Benson Wong, who also has an account on the World (but with a different user ID, obviously.) Mr. Wong's misdirected messages are usually complex fixes for software bugs and other highly techy stuff, which generally sets off a lot of "Oh, dear me!" stuff from my readers, who usually affect the style and tone of the 1920'and 30's novels we are always discussing. The Internet is a strange and wonderful place! Elizabeth Thomsen From list-managers-owner Sat May 14 08:12:08 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id IAA10456; Sat, 14 May 1994 08:12:08 GMT Received: from sgiblab.sgi.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id BAA10448; Sat, 14 May 1994 01:11:58 -0700 Received: from bolis by sgiblab.sgi.com via UUCP (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) id AA28496; Sat, 14 May 94 01:12:50 -0700 Received: by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0q2E61-0002a3C; Sat, 14 May 94 00:25 PDT Message-Id: From: Alan Millar Subject: Re: Effective naming of new list To: ritdan@bethel.edu Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 00:25:16 -0800 (PDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199405132233.AA27925@homer.bethel.edu> from "Daniel E. Ritchie" at May 13, 94 05:33:59 pm Reply-To: Alan Millar X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1717 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk And verily didst Daniel E. Ritchie spake of these matters: > Background: I'm starting a new (listserv) list for people interested in the > relationship between Christianity and Literature. The list will be affiliated > with a long-time organization called "The Conference on Christianity and > Literature." I'm trying to figure out whether to name it "ChrLit" (which seems > inelegant) or "CCLnet" (which won't mean anything to the folks outside our > organization whom I'd like to welcome to the list). I appreciate any > suggestions. It's been my experience that the simpler the list name is to type *and pronounce*, the more likely people are to get it right. List names that are made from initials, unless those initials are already very well known, tend to get mixed up and transposed. People also seem to do well with simple, one or two syllable names. I'd vote against "CCLnet" because it is four syllables to remember, it doesn't readily indicate the subject as well as it could, and the "net" suffix is completely superfluous. There are too many names already that have a useless "net" syllable in them. Everyone knows it's a mailing list already, adding "net" doesn't improve it in any way. Try to find something succint. If your system doesn't have an eight- character name limit, "ChristLit" might be a good choice. I'd keep towards the two-syllable, more obvious-looking names. - Alan ---- ,,,, Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org __oo \ System Administrator =___/ The skill of accurate perception is called cynicism by those who don't possess it. From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 06:36:28 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id GAA22443; Mon, 16 May 1994 06:36:28 GMT Received: from witch.witchcraft.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id XAA22429; Sun, 15 May 1994 23:36:17 -0700 Received: by witch.witchcraft.com id AA23109 (5.65/1.35 for ); Mon, 16 May 94 02:36:37 -0400 Received: by win.net!civix; Sun, 15 May 1994 22:49:46 X-Mailer: WinNET Mail, v2.11 Message-Id: <68@civix.win.net> Reply-To: dorr@civix.win.net (David Orr) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 22:49:46 Subject: Seeking your advise From: dorr@civix.win.net (David Orr) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm new to this list, so please forgive me if I am the 10,000th person to ask this same question. 1. What is the difference between a usergroup, newsgroup, sig-list, and a mailing list? 2. I have requirement to set up a number of mailing lists (I believe this is the right classification) to help facilitate a number of discussion groups. These groups will not be publicly available, but rather for use in collaboration. The members of these groups will change frequently. It seems to me that commercial service providers are not terribly eager to do all this maintenance on my behalf. One other reqirement is that I would like the interface with Internet to be simple. Currently I am using WinNet by Witchcraft. I find this a fairly straightforward system to use. In all, what would you reccommend ? 3. I have contacted PSILink and they have informed me that in order to do what I want, I need to pay them $175 per month. On top of that I will have to buy the Internet communications software for $200 and he reccommended I buy some mailing list maintenance software. (Price and name unknown). Also he said that I would have to download all the messages to my machine, just to turn araound and resend them to their final destination. Is there any service our there that will allow me to remotely maintain mailing lists? If you could please help me out with these questions, I would be greatly indebted. Thank you David From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 05:49:23 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA23814; Mon, 16 May 1994 12:19:54 GMT Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA23799; Mon, 16 May 1994 05:19:43 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 May 94 6:26:37 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: MMDF users? Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9405160626.aa29905@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anybody out there running a mailing list on a host using MMDF? Drop me a note if you are (I think I'm reaching the point where I'm saturating the mailer:-{). Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 17:45:24 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id RAA25639; Mon, 16 May 1994 17:45:24 GMT Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id KAA25633; Mon, 16 May 1994 10:45:12 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA17146 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for greatcircle.com!List-Managers); Mon, 16 May 1994 12:12:34 -0500 Received: by taronga.taronga.com (smail2.5) id AA01457; 16 May 94 12:10:18 CDT (Mon) Subject: Mailing List Etiquette To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 16 May 94 12:10:15 CDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Message-Id: <9405161210.AA01457@taronga.taronga.com> From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Something happened this past weekend to the ranger-list that annoyed me to no end, I'll try not to rant about it. But it does bring up something that's never happened to me before, even tho I've read about it here. Received a letter from someone. Was rather polite, in fact. Introduced himself, told me what he was looking for, etc, etc. He seemed to be taken aback by my list description which read that the ranger-list was extremely high volume (it used to be, but has slowed down quite a bit as of late). He was looking for something but didn't want to join, so he informed me that was going to send a message to the list anyways, asking his question. Then the very next letter in my mailbox was his message to the list! He didn't even wait for a reply. Now the list is moderated, so his message didn't go through. What makes things worse is what he was looking for -- a bootleg video, which he was willing to trade for another bootleg video from his collection. (When I told him illicit activities weren't allowed on my list, he called them "rare" videos and defended his possession of them.) He also asked lots of questions about the list, like are there any animators on it, do we get lots of inside info, etc. (the answer to both these questions is yes, but so far I have refrained from telling him this). Then he came back and asked to join, but only for a little while. He comes across and kind of sleazy, but he's been very polite and apologetic in email. So I asked the list. I'm still getting feedback, but I got into an argument with one of my list members, who doesn't run a list himself but who is a newsgroup moderator. He seems to think there's nothing wrong with sending email to lists one doesn't belong to and in fact, it's a common practice, it happens all the time. And that it's a *condoned* practice. His reasoning is that it's okay to do it because there's nothing there stopping you (I was like, yeah, there's nothing stopping people from forging to a moderated newsgroup but that doesn't mean it's okay to do that) and he says there's nothing in Usenet etiquette denouncing the practice. Which is weird, cause I'm right now currently in the process of writing a small file to post periodically to new.announce.newusers. I was going to put in pointers to the Mailing List FAQ and also address mailing list etiquette which hasn't been done, to my knowledge. And I probably should run it past you people for comments before I start posting it. But my question is, am I right? Is it an uncool thing to post to a mailing list that one doesn't belong to? -- Stephanie da Silva PO Box 720711 arielle@taronga.com Houston, TX 77272 Moderator, rec.food.recipes 713 568 0381 From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 18:06:34 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA25761; Mon, 16 May 1994 18:06:34 GMT Received: from vector.casti.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA25755; Mon, 16 May 1994 11:06:22 -0700 Received: by vector.casti.com (NX5.67d/5.931230) id AA03120; Mon, 16 May 94 14:01:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:01:14 -0400 (EDT) From: David Casti Subject: Re: Mailing List Etiquette To: Stephanie da Silva Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405161210.AA01457@taronga.taronga.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > But my question is, am I right? Is it an uncool thing to post to a mailing > list that one doesn't belong to? I think it depends a lot on the list, and I think that there won't be any good rule for dealing with this issue. In some instances -- say a social list for a geographic reigion -- I think it is perfectly appropriate for someone who may be visiting the area to send a message to that list looking for advice, without joining the list. Another possibility would be a list which does not exist for discussion purposes, but rather as a collection of experts on a particular topic. Folks can lob questions to the list, and in fact in this case you wouldn't *want* those asking questions to also be subscribed to the list. In other instances (just about any list whose primary function is discussion), it's probably uncool. It's also unproductive, because lots of list members will respond to the list address -- not the sender address -- and they'll miss out on the feedback. While this fellow's argument about "if I *can* do it, that means I *should* do it" is pretty weak, it is also true that if you're running lists where this is a major concern, then get some mailing list software which checks for this -- I believe both majordomo and listserv can be taught to only accept postings from list members. David. From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 18:09:13 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA25795; Mon, 16 May 1994 18:09:13 GMT Received: from z.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA25789; Mon, 16 May 1994 11:09:06 -0700 Received: from localhost (mmorse@localhost) by z.nsf.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id OAA02947; Mon, 16 May 1994 14:10:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199405161810.OAA02947@z.nsf.gov> From: mmorse@nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse) Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:10:05 EDT In-Reply-To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) "Mailing List Etiquette" (May 16, 12:10pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva), List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing List Etiquette Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > But my question is, am I right? Is it an uncool thing to post to a mailing > list that one doesn't belong to? This is a hard question to answer. You are ascribing moral values ("right" and "wrong", or "cool" and "uncool") to what is fundamentally a cultural issue. If, when you grew up, your parents repeatedly told you to never post to a newsgroup that you didn't belong to, you might think that this was "right". However, some other culture might exist (it does) in which one is very free to post without belonging. Who is right? Neither is, but when they come in contact with each other, an extra dose of understanding and communication skills is required to avoid ill feelings. --Mike From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 18:58:09 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id SAA26076; Mon, 16 May 1994 18:58:09 GMT Received: from Thinkage.On.CA by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA26070; Mon, 16 May 1994 11:57:53 -0700 Received: from Thinkage.On.CA (hog.thinkage.on.ca [192.102.11.6]) by thinkage.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) with ESMTP id OAA23150 for ; Mon, 16 May 1994 14:58:04 -0400 From: Ken Dykes Received: from localhost (kgdykes@localhost) by hog.thinkage.on.ca (8.6.4/Thinkage940206) id OAA03428; Mon, 16 May 1994 14:57:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:57:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199405161857.OAA03428@Thinkage.On.CA> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing List Etiquette Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Subject: Mailing List Etiquette >Date: Mon, 16 May 94 12:10:15 CDT >From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) >... >But my question is, am I right? Is it an uncool thing to post to a mailing >list that one doesn't belong to? i think it's most Uncool. because on my list 99% of replies go back to the digest rather than to the message author. (even if the author implies they want a direct answer). and this is the way i like it actually. and personally, i feel they simply DON'T deserve the benefits of a list without personally enduring some of the grief of having to receive the email on a regular basis -- like the real list members. they're looking for a spoon feeding, and we don't do spoon feedings. unfortunately it's hard to put non-member filters in because legit members often use multiple addresses/workstations or have site-admins that semi- regularly change the appearance of their site email addresses. (i don't moderate as such, but run an automated digest) i do filter messages from particularly offensive domains however. - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca postmaster@thinkage.com harley-request@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes From list-managers-owner Mon May 16 19:08:49 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id TAA26131; Mon, 16 May 1994 19:08:49 GMT Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA26125; Mon, 16 May 1994 12:08:33 -0700 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id PAA05899; Mon, 16 May 1994 15:08:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199405161908.PAA05899@wilma.cs.utk.edu> From: Keith Moore To: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Mailing List Etiquette In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 May 1994 12:10:15 CDT." <9405161210.AA01457@taronga.taronga.com> Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 15:07:59 -0400 Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is it an uncool thing to post to a mailing list that one doesn't > belong to? It depends on the list. Some lists exist for the very purpose of answering questions from "newbies" of one sort or another, who are unlikely to be regular subscribers. Other lists are intended to be discussion groups by people interested in those topics; depending on how the list software is set up, discussion may be most effective if all participants are actually subscribed to the list. Still other lists are *defined* to be closed groups for which you must be a member. I don't think there's a general answer to this question that applies to all lists. Each list has its own needs and defines its own rules in this regard. Keith Moore From list-managers-owner Tue May 17 16:26:41 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id QAA03369; Tue, 17 May 1994 16:26:41 GMT Received: from lepomis.psych.upenn.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id JAA03363; Tue, 17 May 1994 09:26:32 -0700 Received: by lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA19897; Tue, 17 May 1994 12:27:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:27:46 -0400 From: rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) Message-Id: <9405171627.AA19897@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199405170810.BAA00863@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> (List-Managers-Digest-Owner@GreatCircle.COM) Subject: accepting submissions from subscribers only Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ken Dykes (kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca) writes: >unfortunately it's hard to put non-member filters in because legit >members often use multiple addresses/workstations or have site-admins >that semi- regularly change the appearance of their site email >addresses. (i don't moderate as such, but run an automated digest) I'm not trying to proselytize--if I'd known about Majordomo at the time I set up my mailing lists, I might well have used it instead--but the above is trivially simple to implement with listproc (written by Anastasios C. Kotsikonas and available via ftp from cs.bu.edu in /pub/listserv). Accepting submissions from subscribers only is the default setup, and there is an aliasing feature that allows you to create aliases for anyone with multiple accounts. Wildcard characters can be used to cover cases where subscribers use multiple workstations that differ in name only by number, for instance. Mickey Rowe (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu) From list-managers-owner Wed May 18 11:25:36 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id LAA11301; Wed, 18 May 1994 11:25:36 GMT Received: from mv.mv.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id EAA11295; Wed, 18 May 1994 04:25:28 -0700 Received: by mv.mv.com (8.6.8/mem-931109) id HAA04359 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 18 May 1994 07:26:30 -0400 Received: by ronin.ronin.com (5.65/smail2.2/06-30-87) id AA14950; Wed, 18 May 94 06:09:22 -0400 From: Ben Smith Message-Id: <9405181009.AA14950@ronin.ronin.com> Subject: List of Lists To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 18 May 94 6:09:21 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL5] Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is there any site that is maintaining a list of the publicly available lists and what the subject matter is? I'd love to search for an existing list before I try and implement it on my machine. -ben -- \^___^/ ============================================================ (o o) ben@ronin.com || ben@byte.com || bsmith@newpisgah.keene.edu \|/ Ronin Publishing : Peterborough, NH USA : Live Free or Die m ============================================================ From list-managers-owner Wed May 18 12:24:07 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA11825; Wed, 18 May 1994 12:24:07 GMT Received: from ftp.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA11819; Wed, 18 May 1994 05:23:59 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by ftp.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id IAA00202; Wed, 18 May 1994 08:25:09 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA09456; Wed, 18 May 1994 08:25:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 08:25:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Reply-To: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: List of Lists To: Ben Smith Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405181009.AA14950@ronin.ronin.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there any site that is maintaining a list of the publicly available > lists and what the subject matter is? I'd love to search for an existing LSTOWN-L@SEARN.SUNET.SE to subscribe: LISTSERV@SEARN.SUNET.SE or LISTSERV@SEARN.BITNET From list-managers-owner Wed May 18 12:31:14 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA11892; Wed, 18 May 1994 12:31:14 GMT Received: from MIT.EDU by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA11885; Wed, 18 May 1994 05:31:01 -0700 From: pshuang@MIT.EDU Received: from NINJA.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA01196; Wed, 18 May 94 08:32:00 EDT Received: by ninja.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA06285; Wed, 18 May 94 08:31:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 May 94 08:31:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9405181231.AA06285@ninja.MIT.EDU> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Ben Smith's message of Wed, 18 May 94 6:09:21 EDT <9405181009.AA14950@ronin.ronin.com> Subject: List of Lists Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there any site that is maintaining a list of the publicly available > lists and what the subject matter is? I'd love to search for an existing > list before I try and implement it on my machine. -ben In the Usenet posting Subject: List of Periodic Informational Postings, Part 5/8 From: jik@security.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Newsgroups: news.lists,news.announce.newusers,news.answers there is a listing for Newsgroups: news.lists,news.announce.newusers,news.answers Subject: Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists, Part */* From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Frequency: monthly Summary: 594 mailing lists in six postings Archive-name: mail/mailing-lists/part3 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 02:48:48 GMT From list-managers-owner Wed May 18 06:19:32 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id MAA12078; Wed, 18 May 1994 12:49:52 GMT Received: from ftp.std.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id FAA12069; Wed, 18 May 1994 05:49:37 -0700 Received: from world.std.com by ftp.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id IAA01318; Wed, 18 May 1994 08:50:38 -0400 Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA18761; Wed, 18 May 1994 08:50:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 08:50:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Sharon Shea Subject: Re: List of Lists To: Ben Smith Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9405181009.AA14950@ronin.ronin.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there any site that is maintaining a list of the publicly available Ignore last message (got my lists mixed up (too many lists!)) This is the new-list list that will also research lists NEW-LIST@VM1.NoDak.EDU LISTSERV for subscription From list-managers-owner Wed May 18 14:42:42 1994 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id OAA13203; Wed, 18 May 1994 14:42:42 GMT Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-931103) id HAA13196; Wed, 18 May 1994 07:42:21 -0700 From: PMDAtropos@aol.com Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA12276; Wed, 18 May 1994 10:42:41 -0400 X-Mailer: America Online Mailer Message-Id: <9405181042.tn237104@aol.com> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 18 May 94 10:42:39 EDT Subject: Re: List of Lists Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there any site that is maintaining a list of the publicly available... You can query any host running Eric Thomas' Revised LISTSERV for a list of all known LISTSERV lists by sending the command LIST GLOBAL. Some well-known LISTSERV hosts include vm1.nodak.edu, brownvm.brown.edu, psuvm.psu.edu an