At 10:09 07/09/2001 Monday, David Devereaux-Weber wrote:
>Does Listserv include Listserv commands in the list of suspicious terms in
>a "Subject:' header?
>
>If not, is it possible to add "unsub*" to the list of suspicious subjects?

It might be possible, but not necessarily needed i.e., if the body is
empty, the posting is rejected regardless of the subject:

Date:         Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:11:41 -0400
X-PH: V4.1@f05n11
From: "L-Soft list server at LISTS.PSU.EDU (1.8d)"
               <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
To: "Pete Weiss -- Sr. Systems Engineer Penn State"
               <[log in to unmask]>

LISTSERV does not allow the distribution of empty messages to a mailing list,
because some users  are unable to see the "Subject:"  field from the original
message.

------------------------ Rejected message (14 lines) --------------------------
Received: from sysop5.psu.edu (sysop5.oas.psu.edu [128.118.110.199])
         by f05n16.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA165234
         for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:11:40 -0400
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender:  (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:11:40 -0400
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Pete LS Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: unsub
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Also, it may be counter to good mailing list management -- some Subject:s
that contain LISTSERV commands may be perfectly valid topics of
conversation.  When this occurs in the body (first line), the message is
rejected with auto-suggestions on how to "fool" the semantics check.  I'm
sure that the same rules would NOT apply to a Subject:.


/Pete Weiss