Eric,

>Changing the header is but one of many ways to make things go all wrong,
>and a relatively complicated one at that. DELETE *@* is another good way
>to create trouble for yourself, or of course you could SET * NOMAIL,
>especially without QUIET, all of which is much easier than figuring out the
>syntax for updating a list header and then thinking up a configuration that
>actually creates a serious problem. In comparison, DELETE *@* only
>requires very limited imagination. Also note that a list owner who cannot
>use GET/PUT (as you proposed) cannot update the welcome message,
>the list FAQ, etc.


I wasn't referring to a malicious attack on a list/s but rather the improper
management of those who don't know. When I had 300 lists, the issue of a List
Owner was smaller, now that I have to increase the number to close to 1500-2000
lists the problem becomes bigger. No academic staff member would ever want to
be a List Owner and they would assign it to their assistants, few per list.
If I ever have to deal with them, I'll end up doing nothing else but this,
which I can't afford since Listserv management is only a very small part of
what I am doing. But, if I could set up a 'template' list, one that would suit
most needs and show the owners how to delete and add, and deal with errors, I
assume this would cover for most of their job, so everyone will be happy.
Of course one can still do a DELETE *@* as you suggested, but this is unlikely,
as the word in itself (DELETE!) is quite scary and indicative to the effect
that it will cause. Changing a List Header, is another issue, as people with
the best intentions can cause a lot of trouble, such that would need time to
deal with, investigate, correct etc. This is exactly what I would like to save.
I have a need for a List Owner type who is doing maintenance work around the
list, not changing it's attributes, and I was trying to find out if this could
be common to other people. And yes, I *would* like them to be able to change
the Welcome file, which is another thing.

>I am sure some people, including you, do have a use for this feature. I am
>equally sure that few people would put it high on their priority list. Like
>Nathan, I find your characterisation of our answer to your suggestion a bit
>provocative, if by no means a major big deal.

I am sorry if you feel that way, but in fact I wasn't provocative, as I
explained in my former post to this list minutes ago. It was my understanding
that Lsoft thinks based on past requests that this isn't really a needed
feature.
Perhaps the English phrasing of 'needless' has a different impact then I know.
Like yourself, I am very busy and have no time or desire to be provocative.
Please accept that I was trying to make a positive contribution here.

>I also find your little survey pointless. It just
>does not make sense to ask people things like "Should there be a secondary
>list owner option in LISTSERV?" or "Should programmers be paid more?"
>Some people may answer negatively, but the real issue is closer to "Should
>L-Soft have implemented secondary list owners instead of a new feature
>to reject/filter attachments posted to lists?" or "Should secretaries make
>even less so that programmers can make even more?" Most people want to have
>the cake and eat it, if offered the option. You hardly need a survey to
>confirm this. Anyway, what you have manufactured is a survey that is only meaningful
>if the answer is negative - it will make it clear that this feature is not
>desired, since you offered it with no drawback, and people still did not want it.

I know this 'Survey' is far from being a 'real' one and has many drawbacks one
can easily point but I don't agree that it is pointless altogether.
For one, me and you , don't have a way to know what people are thinking
about a specific option, unless we ask. There isn't much I can do in order to
find out if this feature is just a special need of mine, or if it may express a
more general need, unless I ask. So I did.
Second, human nature is such that people don't hurry to answer surveys.
Typical response rates for surveys is anything between 3-15%, 15% considered
in fact quite high. So if many people would bother to take the effort and
answer it, this would mean something.
And if 50% would say this is a very important feature they would like to see
implemented, won't you consider this as a valuable piece of information
for you, regardless of what you decide to do with it ?
My feeling is, that perhaps this feature wasn't that much needed in the past
and for many people perhaps in the present as well, but this might not be so in
the future where more and more lists will be opened, which by the way is a
trend you should love ! :-)


>By all means do feel free to make a second survey, asking if people would
>rather be able to reject attachments posted to their list or have secondary list
>owners. The implementation costs are comparable, so this is a good,
>meaningful survey to make.


It could indeed be a good idea if you posted a list of requests and planned
additions/changes/enhancements and asked
people to assign it their priorities. Coupled with your view of costs involved,
effort associated etc, the outcome could benefit everyone involved.
I would contribute then some of my ideas for changes/additions and I am sure
many more will do the same, ending in an even better Listserv.
In any case, as I mentioned earlier, please accept all my remarks as
positive feedback.

Best,
Moshe




> Eric