Verily didst Ty Sarna rise up and spake thus:
> Michael H. Morse wrote:
> > As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
> > go as far as to the name "listserver". "LISTSERV" is just
> > "listserver" truncated to 8 characters to meet the needs of an e-mail
> > system based on the concept of moving punched cards between hosts.
> > If I change the name to "LISTMGR", how am I providing better service?
> > I rather think I'll be confusing people.
> Thank you, that just about sums up my feelings. The name "listserv" is
> short, familiar, and describes pretty well what it does. The minor
> differences in command syntax between listservs (take that! I've
> generecized it!) are much less confusing than having a hundred different
> addresses to send to.
The worst part about having different names on different machines
is that since users can't remember what that darn administrative
address is, they send their request to the mailing list! We've all
seen the list messages saying "please add me" or worse "please
What I did (to satisfy the Bitnet whiners) is call my setup
"listserver". Messages from it say they are from "listserver".
Then, to help real people, I also added aliases to it for listserv,
mailserv, archive-server and one or two others. Because you KNOW that
people are going to want to send to "listserv@sitename", and this way it
still works. So even though it send out mail saying it is listserver,
it will accept incoming mail to any of these addresses.
If you ask me, accepting incoming messages at any of these names
should be the default.
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org __oo \
System Administrator =___/
"Windows/NT - From the people who brought you EDLIN" -Herb Peyerl