Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(June 1998)
 

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

Subject: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk @ gsp . org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:54:26 -0400
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <199806171943 . MAA06767 @ honor . greatcircle . com>; from Eric Thomas on Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200
References: <199806171943 . MAA06767 @ honor . greatcircle . com>

On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote:
> >Hmmm. Given  that you  make software  for the  Internet, don't  you have
> >someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not?
> 
> For the same reason that we  don't have someone reading ALL the Microsoft
> technical articles about Windows NT, ALL the Sun technical articles about
> Solaris, and  so on. Which  incidentally are a  LOT more relevant  on the
> average than draft  RFCs. Mailing lists are not standardized  by the IETF
> and will probably never be, and as  for the MIME and SMTP RFCs, we follow
> them of course, just as we follow selected NT issues and are a field test
> site  for many  operating systems,  which doesn't  mean we  read articles
> about COBOL compilers or SNA.

Don't be ridiculous; nobody asked you if you read articles about
COBOL compilers or SNA.  You were asked why you don't have someone
read all the draft RFC's.  I don't see an answer to that question
in the above paragraph.

> >The -request  convention has been  around since the Arpanet.  I remember
> >seeing it back in 1979.
> 
> Yes, and  it pointed to  a human  person.

Back then, yes.  But it's clearly been understood for well over a decade
that one can expect to find an agent of *some* kind -- either human or
software -- at that address, which is capable of processing requests.
Further, it's been clearly understood that IF an automated agent was
present, that was where it could be found.

> >From these comments  it is obvious that you are  not qualified to discuss
> ease of use issues.

I don't recall submitting my resume to you for your consideration.  (Rest
assured, it's unlikely that I will in the future.  If your company
has one.)  Now would you like to discuss the issue on the merits, or
would like to work out from where you are and contend that I'm too tall
to discuss ease of use issues?

> >But  otherwise, face  the  fact  that you  were  caught  napping by  the
> >codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts
> 
> LISTSERV  is in  full  compliance  with the  de  facto standard.  RFC2142
> attempts to redefine this standard to  be a totally different thing. This
> is why we will not implement it.

LISTSERV is in non-compliance with the de facto standard -- mostly
because it's *not* what you claim it to be -- and with RFC2142.

Frankly, I'm astonished.  This is a pretty amazing case of denial,
which wouldn't really bother me -- hey, you want to ship broken
software, go for it -- except that it has repercussions for everyone
else on the 'net who *is* in compliance with the de facto standard
and who will make good faith efforts to comply with RFC 2142.  Maybe
you think you're enough of a heavyweight in the marketplace to
get away with flaunting it -- and maybe you are.

But I hope you aren't.  And I'll certainly do my small part to try
to make that a reality.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk @
 gsp .
 org


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC @ VM . SE . LSOFT . COM>
Next: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC @ VM . SE . LSOFT . COM>
Next: Re: Finding A Listowner
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com