On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 04:46:36AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:35:17PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote: > > > If you are unable to send a message to > > > a specified address with a specified subject line, you are unlikely to > > Ironically, majordomo doesn't use the subject line at all and yet this > > appears in your argument. Perhaps this is a testament to this software's > > obscurity? > > No, it is a testament to Roger's memory being less than perfect. The > instructions given for subscribing to majordomo lists are explicit about > what the user needs to do, so no confusion can possibly arise. ...struck a nerve here, have we Dave? It's, err, just mailing list software. You like majordomo. Fine. You'd never mess up its commands. Fine. You look down upon those that would mess up its commands. Err, fine, I guess. But Roger's imperfect memory here would keep him from subscribing, wouldn't it? I take it then that he doesn't make the cut for you? That's too bad, he seems like a smart guy to me, but hey it's your list to run. I think Paul's points are valid though. Why make an aptitute test out of this? What's so great about software obscurity or pedantry? Certainly these aren't design criteria set out with the original question, twenty or so messages back in the thread. It seemed like a friendly interface was more important than a sufficiently challenging one, didn't it? Personally, I think Majordomo is quickly becoming a relic. Mailman seems to be far more popular now -- and deservedly so -- and Ezmlm is also more popular and also has a better reputation than Majordomo. Aside from some kind of retro nostalgia trip, why should anyone use Majordomo over the more modern replacements? Polemics aside, I see no benefit for it anymore. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/ "More war soon. You know how it is." -- mnftiu.cc
