Roger Fajman said:
>
> > > 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.
CREN's listproc 7.0 supports listname-request and forwards the mail to the
owners. There will probably be an owner-controllable switch to redirect
such emails to the automated server.
Tasos
|
|
