Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA00420; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:02:00 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:01:24 -0400 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (searn.sunet.se [192.36.125.4]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA00388; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:01:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199604080001.UAA00388@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2086; Mon, 08 Apr 96 02:02:33 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 8384; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 02:02:33 +0200 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:55:47 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Headers and agents To: drums@cs.utk.edu If we are seriously going to discuss what mailings can, should, cannot and should not be doing, I would like to humbly request that people who do not have at least 3 years of hands on experience with the management of at least a dozen mailing lists, of which at least one must be in excess of 2,000 subscribers, kindly abstain from formulating opinions that fall into one of the following categories: 1. "This is totally useless and should not be allowed". 2. "This cannot possibly work and must be prohibited". 3. "Mailing lists are not meant to be used for X". 4. "Nobody in his right mind would want to do X, so let's ban it". This is not meant as a direct reply to the recent discussions, which were just the straw that broke the camel's back. I have seen a lot of strong statements about mailing lists on this group that suggest that their authors simply do not have the required experience to pass judgment on existing praxis. Eric