Re: Worth running MJ at <list>-request address?

[Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>]

>>>>> "MV" == Martin Voges <voges@drama.unp.ac.za> writes:

MV> Hi all, I'd appreciate any info about the (dis)advantages of running
MV> majordomo via aliases at the <listname>-request address, please.  Is it
MV> just a historical option, or is there real value in that approach?

Historically Majordomo hasn't had -request addresses; they were added
because that's what many other pieces of software use.  If you like them
and your users expect them, then use them.  It doesn't harm anything, if
that's what you're asking.  It does bring more aliases to maintain, though.

MV> BTW, if any MJ-workers are reading this, would you consider putting the
MV> caveats about <list> being optional near the front of the "help" rather
MV> than at the end (with "majordomo_request" turned on in the
MV> majordomo.cf)? 

I think the help documents were rewritten for 1.94.2.

 - J<