On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Ben Parker wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:33:15 -0500, Winship <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >You don't think either of my kludge workarounds would work?
>
> Locking a list (by doing a GET of the header and keeping it locked) will also
> prevent people from signing off at any time they might want to.  Responsible
> mailing practices suggest this is never a good idea, and a great way to get
> people extremely angry.

Well, you don't have to do GET and forget the nol, Ben; can lock with an
explict LOCK.  I didn't say it was great, I didn't it was advisable, in
fact I advised against it.  I just said it was a way it *could* be done.

Personally, I think it stinks, but it *could* be done that way.  My other
alternative is so silly it needs no mention other than I think it would
work, were one fool enough to try it (the fee from the client better
be damn huge).

The only criterion for "doable" is can it be done.  I say both my
proposals can be done (I don't advise using either and wouldn't be caught
dead associated with any list which used them) and are therefore "doable."
Remember: he did not say how people subbed or unsubbed, also that most the
time the only options most subscribers want to change are their MAIL
options and he was asking about blocking changes to MAIL options.

I think his potential customers are fools, from what he described;  from
what he described I see no reason for the restrictions other than his
customer wants them regardless.


  Douglas