>> Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and
>> people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent
>> yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not)
>And your problem with that is....
>I mean, as long as you also support the common formats, adding a new,
>improved, easier one as an optional interface is a pretty darn good
>idea. Just don't jetison the old ones arbitrarily. You never know -- by
>trying something new, you might end up replacing the old ones
>eventually with something better.
>I use "foo-sub" and "foo-unsub" addresses on my lists, and they work
>great. So does my web pages that interface to those beasts. But I don't
>use them as my ONLY interfaces, so if people know how to use standard
>majordomo, they don't get hosed. But I see no reason to force people to
>learn those things if they don't want to, and I can create a "new user"
>interface to help them out.
>The trick, of course, isn't to freeze things indefinitely, or to break
>things arbitrarily, but to find ways to help empower the newer, less
>experienced users WITHOUT getting in the way of the power user. Cater
>to both -- it's not a crime. Just more work on the developer's part,
>but then, isn't that why I'm here?
Chuq, your argument make sense, at least as far as it goes. The
biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management
interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then
expect to find them at other sites. I.e if foo-unsub @
why doesn't foo-unsub @
"Families can't trust Disney"