[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       list-managers
Subject:    Re: MLMs
From:       phil () wubios ! wustl ! edu (J !  Philip Miller)
Date:       1993-07-18 15:01:44
Message-ID: 9307181501.AA17340 () wubios
[Download RAW message or body]

"F. Scott Ophof" <Ophof@CS.UWindsor.Ca> writes:
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jul 93 13:20:14 EDT Ravin Asar said:
> >Keeping both around is necessary, so that all users can be told to
> >send list-related administrivia to "listname-request", and people
> >concerned with communicating with the actual owner of the list (like
> >postmasters, system administrators, etc. can send to "owner-listname".
> >This allows one to alias *all* "listname-request" to an MLM, if
> >necessary, and yet keep each "owner-listname" pointing to the owner(s)
> >of the lists.
> 
> OK, now what about "listname-OWNER", which is also in use?
> Does that imply the same as "owner-listname"?
> If so, would it be better to drop one, or to ADD "request-listname"
> so that users won't need to remember whether "listname" comes first
> or not, but only "listname" and the two words "request" (for list-
> related administrivia) and "owner" (the HUMAN)?
> 
one of the reasons that the Bitnet folk have always liked the listserv@node
address is that for Bitnet, almost all of the administrivia stuff can be done
interactively (TELL CMS/SEND VMS).  In most cases the user would be using an
address typed from scratch (no alias) and thus making it as short as possible
reduces the errors/frustration level greatly.  If any of the Unix based MLM's
ever get to the point of supporting interactive messages, either a similiar
short name or a tool that would allow point and click selection would be
necessary.

-phil


-- 
     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
	 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
	  phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2693(FAX)]


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]