🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.185645.20252@utdallas.edu> shane@utdallas.edu (Shane Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.180834.30172@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>Provincialism...I don't think so. Sure, I used BITNET first. Unlike many
>Internet folks, though, I have the benefit of having used and managed both
>environments. I guess you think broader experience is a Bad Thing. That's
>not to say that I'm the one who knows best because of that experience, but
>such experience is hardly a detriment.

 I used BITNET first, and have used it extensively too.  So what.  Where
did I criticize broad experience.  My comment about provincialism was
not a criticism of BITNET.  It was aimed at you for jumping to the
conclusion that I was criticizing BITNET.

 However, in terms of dealing with mailing lists, I do not like LISTSERV.
Sure, it does some thing well.  It also does some things poorly.  Far
more serious than its "Reply-To:" folly is its bad habit of discarding
existing "Message-ID:" headers.  This makes it much harder to track down
problems such as mailing loops.

>You omitted the entire paragraph which stated that if the software were
>deemed by its users to be abusive, then they would cease using it.

 I omitted it, because I did not think it worthy of comment.  Now that
you insist, I will respond.  Apparently you believe subscribers have a
choice.  Do you really believe that subscribers join a mailing list for
the sheer joy of seeing all those headers, and that they have no interest
in the contents of the messages?  Come on.  Get real.  If subscribers
want the messages provided by a LISTSERV they rarely have any other
choices of where to get it.  If they do have other choices, they are
rarely aware of those choices.

>I also have users who expect that replying to "Undelivered mail" and saying
>"Please correct the address to so-and-so@wherever" will get their misaddressed
>mail delivered.

  You only emphasize my point.  Most email users are relatively naive
about the technicalities of email, and do not understand "Reply-To:"
any more than they understand the folly of replying to "Undelivered
mail."  The software designer needs to be aware of this lack of
sophistication of his users.  This is why the "Reply-To:" which just
points back to the list is so abusive.