|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:26:25 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
<001001befa5b$37a54ae0$85b14c3f@main> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" |
Reply-To: |
|
>It seems to me... not that that means much.. a useful function might be the
>ability to control a subscribers ability to modify their settings.
>
>If I could set them nomail/digest/index etc.. and they could not change
>it...
>
>How many times have you encountered subscribers with limited mailboxes...
>frequently not checking or going out of town.. set them nomail.. they come
>back.. alter back to mail... catch 22..
>
>Laziness on the part of posters would appear to me to be one of the most
>challenging of duties a list owner addresses..
>
>Quoting entire posts in response rather than editing for quality
>discussion.. forwarding attachments rather than cutting and pasting germain
>information.. well you all know...
[. . .]
I'm presumably missing something, but I don't see how the ability to
control a subscriber's ability to modify their settings would help
solve any of the problems above.
In terms of people who chronically bounce messages, if it's really
irksome a listowner could add them to '* Filter=' or the LISTSERV
maintainer could SERVE them OUT or add them to TRAPIN and/or TRAPOUT.
This will prevent them from resubscribing and thus from receiving
mailing list mail, which is about what a permanent NOMAIL setting
will do.
As far as excessive quoting (which I hope I'm not guilty of here) and
attachments, there are various tools already at your disposal,
including but not limited to '* Sizelim=' and setting problem users
to REVIEW or NOPOST (settings which the user cannot generally alter
without the help of the listowner).
I guess my point is that new tools are being added to LISTSERV (see
all the changes from 1.8c to 1.8d, for instance) and I think that's
good, but I don't (yet) see what the value of allowing a listowner to
control a subscriber's ability to modify his or her settings would be.
-jwgh
|
|
|