>  wonedring if I'm doing wrong.  Thinking about "no-mailing" people vs
>  deleting them, I guess I don't see the difference.  From the user point of
>  view, all they know (assuming they're still interested in the list and
>  haven't just moved to another site w/o bothering to delete themselves), is
>  that all of a sudden they stop getting mail from the list.  They can't tell
>  any difference between our no-mailing them and deleting them, can they?
 
The only way they could tell the difference would be by sending the 'query'
command.  So I guess you're right -- it's basically the same.  It just
doesn't seem quite so "severe" to set them to 'nomail'.  I post reminders
from time to time telling people to check their mail settings with the
'query' command if their mail suddenly ceases.
 
>  to wait until then to get back on. And in any case, regardless of whether
>  they've been no-mailed or deleted they still need to send a message to the
>  listerv -- the only difference is what the message says.  Am I right, or have
>  I totally missed something here?  Thanks. -- Phil (OTS-L)
 
True.  The only advantage of 'nomail' in this respect is that they don't
have to get the list welcome message etc. again.  And, of course, they
save a few keystrokes in not having to write their name.  :-)
   --Natalie ([log in to unmask])