On Tue, 4 May 2004 18:53:58 -0400 Douglas Palmer said:
>On Tue, 4 May 2004, Rich Greenberg wrote:
>
>> } easier web-based method of doing it would be beneficial. I can see the
>>
>> Here i disagree.  Leave it difficult and obscure.  That way a listowner
>> will think twice about the deletion and decide its not worth the
>> effort.
>
>
>How about a compromise? Actually, the ideal solution here (it is a rare
>need, but a real pain because when we need to do it, it can be of the
>highest priority) would be the ability to enter the MSG-ID on the list
>management page somewhere, have it pull up the possible matching message
>and allow me to check off the ones I want deleted from the archive and the
>current digest. It would then ask for verification, send a message to the
>list-owner with a notice that it had been done and by whom and then,
>finally, remove the offending message(s).

Given all this work, I'd rather have the "deleted" message replaced
with a message that say "Message here deleted on date by userid@node"

There are legitimate reasons to need to delete a message at times.
The easier it is to do to, the more likely it is to happen.  We currently
use some lists as audit logs, and so we don't want the list owners to
delete items.  At a minimum, we need a record that the deletion occured

>
>
>-- DCP
/ahw