> > There are currentlyso many possible addresses to use for requests:
> > listserv, listproc, majordomo, intermail, foo-request to name a few.
> > Only one of these naming conventions is software independent, so I
> > think we should try to make "foo-request" the norm.
> There's no question that what you suggest is the better, more elegant,
> more "correct" approach. But what's happening in the real world is
> that list managers are using the software name as the address, and
> folks are writing books announcing it, and users are learning what
> commands to use for each software, and others are writing front ends
> that know what commands to use for each software, and for a few folks
> to try to change it at this time is just, forgive the expression,
> pissing into the wind.
A lot of people think that listname-request ought to reach a person,
or at least a message that tells you how to reach a person if you
really need to. I'm one of them.
The latest version of L-Soft's LISTSERV supports listname-server
as a software imdependent way to address the list server software.
Seems like a reasonable convention to me. But it's true that it
has yet to catch on.
Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 4265
National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV
Postmaster for CU.NIH.GOV/NIHCU, LIST.NIH.GOV/NIHLIST, NIH3PLUS
List owner for PCIP, SNSTCP-L, and TN3270E, all @LIST.NIH.GOV