> Since subscription to your list is open, from a security perspective
> it does not make sense to have private notebooks.  You are not
> gaining any extra security, just causing a little frustration.
>
> I'm asking you to change your LISTSERV list settings to
> Notebooks=public.
 
This is *exactly* the kind of message that I hoped we would NOT see.  As
mentioned recently, there are some list-owners who have consciously
decided that they want some notice of everyone who has had access to their
message database.  If they've chosen to have Subscribe= Open, then they can
at least maintain a record of who has had access if Notebook= private
(since the curious will need to subscribe, thus generating a SUB notice),
whereas there's no record at all if Notebook= public.
 
What we should see, instead of the draft text above, is text saying that some
list-owners may have overlooked the consequences of having Sub=Open/Notebook=
private -- or the fact that not setting Notebook explicitly equal to public in
fact is tantamount to setting it equal to private because that's the
default value.
 
Your letter should point out the consequence of the administrative hassle
involved, and that those list-owners who have not consciously decided to
make this arrangement may wish to eliminate this unnecessary administrivia
by setting Notebook= public.  Your letter should NOT state that there's no
advantage to doing so.  It should not attempt to shepherd list-owners into
giving up a policy they've decided on.
 
> This issue was brought a few weeks ago in the List Owners group
> (LSTOWN-L).  The concensus of the list owners was that a letter (this
> one) should be mailed to list owners who have subscription=open and
> notebooks=private.  People agreed that the change made sense, and
> this was the best way to make it happen.
 
I recall that "we" decided that those who were unaware should be informed
of the unnecessary hassle they're unwittingly creating, but I believe there
was no consensus that list-owners should be goaded into changing a policy
they've decided on.  Your text as written says there's a consensus among
most list-owners that "other" list-owners should change the policies
they've decided upon.  That is simply not true, there is no such
consensus.  Your letter should not purport that there is.
 
I'll ask that you respond here to LSTOWN-L for further discussion on this
point, and that any revised draft that you may write also be posted here
for further comment.
 
-- Roger Burns   [log in to unmask]
   List-owner, CFS-L and CFS-NEWS