On Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT Wes Morgan said:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:54:59 EDT Michael H. Morse said:
>>Scott Ophof said:
>>> (I think) Michael H. Morse said:
>>> >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
>>> >go as far as to the name "listserver".
>>> The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
>>> I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>>Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
>>that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
>>use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
>>"listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
>>some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
>>what do you suggest?
I think it would be fair to say that it would be nice to have the
address reflect which MLM is addressed, except where users could get
confused by a different behaviour than the address would imply.
So if it's a "ListServer" running on a BITnet node, I personally
would go for something like (maybe) "L-SERVER" to ensure users
wouldn't expect a "Revised LISTSERV".
>How many of us call our HP-UX systems "Unix"? How about those Macs
>running A/UX? Are they "Unix"? PRIMIX? Solaris? HCX/UX? On and
Ouch... Yes, this is indeed a sore point too; they're all based on
the "Unix" concept, but different enough to confuse the users...
Gee, what if I run Majordomo and call it something
If there's no MLM using "MailServ" as product name, then why not?
Though in the interest of the users, it wouldn't really be such a
good idea, right?
>What if I write an exact Unix clone of LISTSERV? Arrgh.....
Which users & maintainers etc. couldn't distinguish from "Revised
LISTSERV" and interfacing with the other "Revised LISTSERV"s exactly
as they do with each other? Of course you wouldn't use "Revised
LISTSERV" code, or use "LISTSERV" as product name... :-)
I would very much applaud such a project, and point out that CREN
currently is engaged in just such a project! And I'd sincerely hope
Eric wouldn't grumble at <listserv@..>-type addresses being used.
If I'm not mistaken, Tasos' intention was that "ListServer" be
indistinguishable from "Revised LISTSERV" as to the common subset
of functionality and user-interface.