Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(May 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Single-command addresses
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>
Date: 05 May 1998 14:18:39 -0500
To: Bill Houle <Bill . Houle @ SanDiegoCA . NCR . COM>
Cc: majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Bill Houle's message of "Tue, 05 May 1998 12:02:39 -0700"
References: <Manar Hussain's message of "Tue, 05 May 1998 01:49:22 +0100"> <3.0.5.32.19980505014922.008f1890@stingray.ivision.co.uk> <199805051901.MAA12193@ncr-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>

>>>>> "BH" == Bill Houle <Bill.Houle@SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> writes:

BH> I would side with the novices on this one: it's foolproof for them, so
BH> provide sub/un single-command aliases. No more than sub/un though.

Well, that's one against and a mound for.  I can think of other redeeming
things to do with an 'mj_command', like a convenient autoresponder, so I'll
look into writing it.

[Commands in subject]
BH> I only see it featured/utilized on hackish list managers, not the
BH> biggies like Majordomo and Listserv.

I think everyone using SmartList would disagree with you.  Having spend
some hours in the SmartList source, I'd say that it is hackish, but no less
so than Majordomo.  Is Procmail coupled with shell scripts any worse than
Perl?

One thing I never understood about MLMs that only use command-addresses or
commands in the subject are how they manage 'global' things, like the
'lists' command.  Or remote configuration.

 - J<


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Single-command addresses
From: Bill Houle <Bill.Houle@SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
Next: Request for 'commands' in the aliases/addresses
From: Brock Rozen <brozen@torah.org>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Single-command addresses
From: Bill Houle <Bill.Houle@SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
Next: Re: Single-command addresses
From: Mark Rafn <dagon@halcyon.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com