Re:
> 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.
>
Opinion is divided here - there is no concensous - thats the whole
problem.
> 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 contradiction here: the fact that Listserv supports it
doesn't make it 'software independant' - quite the contrary in fact.
> Seems like a reasonable convention to me. But it's true that it
> has yet to catch on.
I dont agree with adding new conventions in the vain hope that they will
catch on: there are enough 'conventions' around already... except they
are implemented slightly differently by each new sw author :-(
Ironically, Listserv is what has defined many of the conventions
in use today: there are a lot of programs which answer listserv@host
which are not even close.
Regards,
John
References:
|
|
