Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 18:46:59 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof" <Ophof@cs.uwindsor.ca>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@greatcircle.com
Precedence: bulk
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".
Being more interested in serving users, I would have all known MLM
addresses on my host pointing at whichever MLM program I was using.
Users don't like having programmers and system administrators require
them to know many many different ways of doing one thing. And I agree
with the users.
Yes, a user who contacts an MLM he doesn't know, at the "name/address"
of one he does know will be a little confused, but at least he'll get
enough information to go forward, rather then a "User Unknown..."
thanx -len
Member, League for Programming Freedom. Ask: lpf@uunet.uu.net
References:
|
|
