[WEB4LIB] Re: The word "listserv" TRADEMARKed

[Richard Wiggins]

Forgive me for perpetuating a thread that by now is of little interest to
Web4libers, but your statement cannot be left unchallenged.

I won't bother trying to debunk your closed-source and Bitnet non-sequiturs,
but it simply is not a fair or credible appraisal to state that LISTSERV is
"unsuitable for modern production use."  AOL supports 6.5 million
subscribers to mailing lists managed by LISTSERV.  The cumulative subscriber
count for all LISTSERV lists is 140,822,033.  Yesterday, 28,634,507 messages
were delivered by LISTSERV lists.  See: 

http://www.lsoft.com/products/default.asp?item=listserv

Certainly one is entitled to his or her opinions, preferences, and biases in
comparing mailing list solutions.  In 2002, I personally would probably
choose an egroup over a mailing list for many applications where I would've
picked LISTSERV in 1992.  Reasonable people differ.  But in my opinion it is
beyond the pale to declare a product with this track record "unsuitable."

[Disclaimer: I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in Lsoft or
LISTSERV.  I do know Eric Thomas from the early days of the product, and I
championed its use at Michigan State back in the mid 80s.  MSU continues to
be a LISTSERV customer, with some 248 lists in production.]

/rich
  
> (I usually also mention that listserv, in addition to being closed-source
> and therefore not subject to peer review, carries with it much of the
> baggage of the defunct BITnet environment and is unsuitable for modern
> production use.  Luckily, open-source alternatives such as majordomo
> and mailman are available.)
> 
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> rsk at magpage.com

____________________________________________________
Richard Wiggins
Writing, Speaking, and Consulting on Internet Topics
rich at richardwiggins.com       www.richardwiggins.com