Subject: Re: example .procmailrc stuff for announce lists

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:44:07 -0700 (MST)

> From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

> ...
> So let me get this straight: I (and the folks desiring this service 
> who have said so publicly and the other, I suspect much larger, bunch 
> who have not said so publicly) should go out and get a PC and spend 
> the time configuring and maintaining sendmail and procmail (instead 
> of my simple though admittedly less powerful Macintosh SMTP server) 
> so that the secretariat can avoid the one time investment of setting 
> up two lists on the majordomo server that they're already running to 
> receive the two sets of mail they're already sending and thereby cut 
> down on the total number of messages sent. I'm just dying to know 
> under what cost-benefit analysis the former is better than the 
> latter. Heck, I'll tell you what: I'll get together with Steve Coya 
> in Salt Lake City and over a beer or two help him create the two new 
> lists so that we're not "demanding" any "extra service from others 
> who receive no payment". In what world is reinventing the wheel 
> multiple times a good idea? ...

It's funny how those who want to tax others always find good and
sufficent reasons.  The notion that what might get done over a beer
or two has anything to do with the actual work of creating and
maintaining a mailing list is not funny...well, unless one is still
amused by the hoary old observation that talk is cheap and that many
people don't understand the difference between talk and action.

I'm sorry to be offensive, but I am offended by the claim that a mailing
list might be created and maintained "in Salt Lake City and over a beer
or two."  Fiddling with sendmail, majordomo, mailman, majordomo, etc. is
not rocket science, but it's a lot more than bar stool talk.  Such a
claim is worse than the ever popular IETF idea that writing an RFC
is tantamount to designing, implementing, and deploying a protocol.

Besides, if I were in Mr. Coya's position, I'd be insulted by the
suggestion that I'd could use such a bar stool talking to in order to 
create the additional lists.

> ...
> >Besides, it has already been more than "attempted" by a third party.
>
> Well, not yet. But as soon as Bruce goes and sets this up, I will 
> certainly be subscribing to his lists (thank you Bruce!).

So where's the beef? 
Why does the IESG need to do anything within the next 6 months, if ever?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:34:09 +0000 (GMT)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> Such a claim is worse than the ever popular IETF idea that writing
> an RFC is tantamount to designing, implementing, and deploying a
> protocol.

...where aligning header fields on word boundaries for
ease of implementation and performance just DOESN'T MATTER.

so hey, why bother doing it?

L.

and the advantage of unicode is that now _anyone_ can write a
byte-aligned protocol once they've wrapped enough XML crud around it.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>