> > 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
Yes, you are right. I was trying to point out to the original poster
that a significant number of otehr people have a different opinion
than the one he thought everyone shared.
> > 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.
It's software-independent in that it does not use the name of the
package. It's not software independent in that currently no package
other than LISTSERV supports it. That could change.
> > 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.
Well, that's currently the only method available. The effort within
the IETF a few years ago to have a working group on mailing list
servers did not succeed. So far no one's been brave enough to try