On 22 Sep 2005 at 15:00, Winship wrote:

> Maureen LeBlanc wrote:
> >  You're not able to have an editor of the list set to review. Your
> >  whole
> > list is an editor in your present configuration (Editor=)
> 
> That was always the case, even with "the Kludge."  The difference is
> that in 1.8e (which UB was running until about a month ago: both Pat's
> and Maureen's lists are hosted at UB) REVIEW took precedence.  In

Right. 

Bottom line it would seem is that it's just common sense that REVIEW means 
REVIEW and NOREVIEW means NOREVIEW. 

> 14.4, Editor takes precedence, so even though you have someone set
> REVIEW, if you still use old setup the subscriber's Editor trumps the
> REVIEW setting you set him to, by list default or otherwise.
> 
> I, and others, argued against this, but Eric prevailed.  I don't
> recall exactly when the discussion/argument took place (it was when
> 14.4 was being beta tested, a year ago?), but it's in the list
> archives.

Well... I'm checking in on your side of the argument now Douglas. I doubt that my 
checking in would've helped the situation back then. 

What a drag this is. 

I will get out the time machine and check into the back and forth, though I did pull up 
Eric's original message (I searched for directives from Eric) and it seems apparent 
that nothing going's to change, (other than finding a different way of doing my list or 
not doing it at all). 

Why does noreview mean nothing? I mean... C'mon... I have people set to noreview 
who've subscribed for 10 years. Their stuff is coming to me to be "redirected." 
"Redirected" sounds like some sort of NEWSPEAK.  It also causes me to have to 
work to put through er... "redirect" posts from eminently trusted people.

Is it that I have to do something with the Moderator= keyword? Has anyone had any 
luck dealing with it that way? 

Or ... set everyone who's a trusted poster up as an editor as Hal Keen has done? 
Has that worked for you too?

My big fat dylanesque question: Is the fact that there's a gateway to and from usenet 
involved, and therefore CANNOT set SEND= private, going to affect things do yas 
think? (I'm guessing that it will...)

Thanks Douglas.

Maureen

> 
> Douglas Winship    [log in to unmask]
>