mailbase Wed, 10 March 1993 10:59 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27506; 10 Mar 93 5:59 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27502; 10 Mar 93 5:59 EST
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01939; 10 Mar 93 5:59 EST
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA13423 on Wed, 10 Mar 93 04:25:00 -0500
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA13419 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fnir-request nir-out) on Wed, 10 Mar 93 04:24:57 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Via:; Wed, 10 Mar 1993 09:23:31 +0000
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 09:25:40 GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
To: NIR <>
Subject: mailbase

> Ummmm... Jill, by redefining a network standard mechanism like
> "mailinglist-request" pointing to the mechanism which subscribes
> one to a mail list, you fly in the face of network convention, and
> are generating a lot of unnecessary confusion in an arena fraught
> with confusion to begin with.

I would like to support Mailbase on this.
They haven't redefined, rather done away with unnecessary complexity while
retaining "mailinglist-request" as an alias for those who haven't read the

As I understand it
All machine readable admin instructions go to Mailbase
All queries and help requests go to mailbase-helpline
All correspondence goes to listname

seems to be sensible to me
and much easier to use too!

I think "network standard mechanism" is rather an exaggeration.

Nicky Ferguson