Organization: Computing Services, University of Windsor
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:21:46 EST
From:         Trish Forrest <TRISH@UCC.UWINDSOR.CA>
Subject: Re: ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?)
Comments: To: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" <lstsrv-l@rutvm1.rutgers.edu>,
          Alan Thew <QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>

   Here is a perspective from a site that lost their NJE connection and
consequently, took LISTSERV out of service with much disappointment.
I have included Mr. Thew only because he does not subscribe to this list
and I use his site to make a point which he can correct for errors if he
wishes.  Now to the points I want to address on this mis-labeled subject,
because from my perspective, there is no battle here.

  First, anyone who seriously believes that users don't post to a list
or write the author of a piece of software *BEFORE* consulting their
own support people, I invite to read the lists HELP-NET and INFONETS
for starters.  I can't count the number of times a user has called to
ask if we know the address of a list for 'topic' because they are having
a problem, to which I reply, why don't you ask me.  (I'm even a nice
person to talk to, go figure!)  I don't know if anyone here has mailed
Eric, but I've had users ask for his address when we first lost our NJE
line because they had difficulty making the transition to an Internet
only site.  I quickly put help documents together for them.  (Correction,
I know of one user who has mailed him on this topic)  In conclusion,
if we installed one of the 'unix servers' here called 'listserv', he'd
get mail.  Our users have only known BITNET...and LISTSERV and that means
Eric Thomas, and they know who he is for the simple reason that we 'teach'
classes on mail and how to use LISTSERV.  I don't want Eric forwarding me
mail from one of our users complaining that his LISTSERV isn't working
the way it is supposed to these days.  Nor do I want to send out a notice
that says "Hey, guess what, LISTSERV isn't really LISTSERV anymore, but
listserv", for reasons explained below.

   Second, it has been stated by Mr. Dupuy that the naming comventions
were not an issue for him.  I don't think this issue was given sufficient
mention.  When I was asked to search for a replacement for LISTSERV
I only found 2 of the 20(!) Eric mentioned...both use the name 'listserv'
and I refused to use anything called 'listserv' either by name or by
address.  Let me say why as one of the reasons is fairly elusive because
I understand Eric has no legal claim to the name 'LISTSERV'.  First, there
is something called 'professional ethics' that prevents me from using
a piece of software called 'listserv'.  One of our users asked for it and
I consulted the LSTSRV-L database to find out if Eric had given approval
for the use of the name.  In addition, one of our users mailed Eric to
verify that he did not.  One might quite legitimately ask if we host
lists here, and since we do not, I might be accused of having the luxury
of invoking 'professional ethics'.  I can only respond, for example, by
pointing to another site that recently took the unix listserv off their
system for the same reason that we wouldn't put it on ours. I don't know how
many lists Alan Thew supports, but I have a great deal of respect for what
must have been a difficult decision, and I hope it is a trend on the
net to move toward ethical conduct in the abscence of legal law dictating
such conduct.  I was also informed, by a second party, that Alan Thew
requested, on a list devoted to the unix listserv, that a disclaimer be
put in that it was NOT Eric's LISTSERV.  Up until now, I have assumed
(perhaps incorrectly) that the software once used at Liverpool was
the server developed by Mr. Kotsikones.  Alan can correct me if this
is an error.

   Third, I am not familiar with the technical aspects of providing
a news feed.  However, until recently, we did not have a full news
feed because we didn't have the disk space nor the readership to
support it.  When we installed a larger disk on our Sun in CS, the
administrator informed me that we had been requested to take a full
feed (even though we still don't have the readership to justify the
resources) because it would make the job of the site providing us
with our feed a lot easier.  I don't believe we are so unique.
Based on reports from our users, they prefer 'mail' for serious lists
that they subscribe to that are relevant to their research and interests,
while news is a purely recreational activity for them, like reading a
book on a rainy day.

   In summary, there is no battle here between LISTSERVs.  To suggest
that there is implies some equality of competition between two or more
legitimate software packages fighting for a market.  There is only one
LISTSERV, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to lend credibility
to software which I hope more and more sites are realizing is unethical
to use on purely professional grounds.  In short, if you want to
provide LISTSERV-like services, ask permission to use the name LISTSERV,
if the author says 'no, use another name', be professional, respect
the answer, and get another name.  Finally, I replied here because I
have seen this issue come up a few times over the years and I am still
amazed by the lack of professionalism on the part of the developers who
not only use the name 'listserv' when asked not to, but who also flaunt
it by posting to this list.   My opinion, my perspective.

Sincerely, Trish