Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 9 Aug 1995 11:22:53 EST |
Comments: |
|
Organization: |
University of Maine System - CAPS |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Can someone give me a good reason why *any* LISTSERV list should not
> be SEND= PRIVATE?
Depends on the list and who writes for it! I have an information &
discussion pair of lists. A third list contains the combined postings
of the first two. There are also 2 dozen local redistributions of the
list. So postings to the information & discussion lists are *often*
from non-subscribers. Also, nearly 1% of subscribers have addresses
from which they cannot send mail.
Because of this and because we validate commands with the OK procedure
(*) (and some of my moderators command LISTSERV only via email), we
have a separate (confidential) list, maintained by the moderators, just
for the purpose of posting.
For another list I own, SEND=PRIVATE works nicely.
- ------
(*) If we were to use just SEND=PRIVATE, postings from the
redistributions would just be rejected. We wish to moderate them, and
so use SEND=Editor,Hold. Making the list be a secondary editor is a
good solution for some, but this is awkward in one instance. We wish
to go one step further in that we moderate "1st post". A subscriber
gets a Default-Options=REVIEW and we reset it to NOREVIEW on 1st post.
Let's say an article comes to the moderator and it is approved. We
now want to treat this address as a subscriber (NOREVIEW). The
moderator doesn't know whether the person is a new subscriber or a
non-subscriber. (A new subscriber would get a SET listname NOREVIEW;
a non-subscriber would get an ADD listname...). It's a hassle to do a
QUERY and then wait for the reply. A *separate* confidential list,
just for regulating posting privilege works nicely.
This isn't confusing, is it? :-)
Regards,
Wayne T. Smith
Systems Group -- CAPS internet: [log in to unmask]
University of Maine System BITNET/CREN: WTS@MAINE
|
|
|