On Mon, Jun 15, 1998 at 05:34:06PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote:
> I don't see how you can reasonably claim that
> mailing list developers should have been aware of this RFC.
Hmmm. Given that you make software for the Internet, don't you
have someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not?
(I knew about it and I don't currently have any involvement with
mailing list software. In fact, I think it would be kind of hard
to overlook it. It does have a rather eye-catching title, IMHO.)
> RFC2142 has at best minority implementation. Most lists work differently,
> and have worked differently for over 10 years, which in itself
> constitutes a strong objection to the change.
The -request convention has been around since the Arpanet. I remember
seeing it back in 1979. Where were you?
> to change existing de facto practice without a VERY GOOD reason, and here
> the reason is at best tenuous!
It IS the existing de facto practice.
> Well, all right, but you won't know
> what command syntax to use unless you know which software is sitting at
> the -request, so this hardly solves anything.
Wrong. The single command
help
returns meaningful information from all of them. And most of the
packages recognize incorrectly formed requests at least well enough
to return messages which suggest the correct format.
> You can't write to -request without
> knowing the hostname, and typically you would get the hostname either
> from a message inviting people to subscribe or from a list search engine,
> in either case you will have subscription instructions.
Also wrong. I see hundreds of subscriptions from people who
have found messages (either singlely or in archives) from various
mailing lists and who have correctly intuited the subscription
address from the "To:" header found on individual messages. They
have no subscription information per se; but they have figured out
the convention and they've tried it to see if it works.
> introduced the -SERVER mailbox many years ago to address this problem,
> but it was not implemented in other major list managers because there is
> simply no demand from the users.
No, it was not implemented because they already were honoring the
long-standing -request convention -- which predates *all* of the
software packages you mention -- and they saw no reason to go along
with your attempt to get the world to use your non-standard approach.
Look, if you want to go through the formal process of modifying RFC 2142 --
then fine. There exist processes that you can participate in --
and even drive, to a certain extent -- for just that purpose. And I
would encourage you to become involved in them, if you are not already.
That's a legitimate way for you to persuade others to make changes --
by force of argument. By debate and vote.
But otherwise, face the fact that you were caught napping by the
codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts
by at least a decade, and deal with it gracefully by fixing
your software. To do otherwise is to thumb your nose at
a community's legitimate attempt to govern itself, and to declare
yourself above that process. It will be noted as such, and
I daresay you'll be held accountable for it.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
