Dear Al and LSTSRV-L Folks,
Maybe you didn't know that what you're
doing is a little out of the ordinary?
I think most of this thread would have been
obviated if you had told us originally that
you are doing this:
>And the problem is that the signups for this list
>are handled elsewhere, and then the email
>addresses are imported into the list. In other
>words, Listserv lets me put him in, but it
>doesn't let him unsubscribe himself.
>
>So, yeah, the listserv is *mine*, but it allows
>import of addresses that it won't allow to
>unsubscribe.
You've gone around the built-in, tried and tested
LISTSERV design, used by most others, to get
new members onto the list. This front end, when
originally designed, took on the responsibility
that it may become a way of generating more
work for yourself - work that most other list
owners let the superb LISTSERV software perform.
It is your choice, as it were, even if designed in
ignorance of LISTSERVs technical intricacies.
Does your front end do a confirmation step,
to be sure LISTSERV can communicate with
the new account e-mail address? [probably not]
So now we see that what you really want,
maybe, is a little warning flag to come up and
say,
"Are you sure you want to
ADD [log in to unmask] Idiot Admin?
To prevent mail loops, the subscriber with this
account will be unable to communicate with
LISTSERV. You will be required to handle all
account changes *for* this account. Are
you sure you want to create this disabled
account?"
>That makes the problem mine
Actually, I think the problem may be bigger
than you, depending on if you have control
of the "elsewhere" where "sign ups for this list
are handled."
In effect, and until now in ignorance, you're
violating one of the (seldom articulated)
fundamental ethical principles of the Internet.
And until now you were using LISTSERV's
self-preservation defense against mail loops
to disempower a user (unknown to yourself,
it seems).
Principle
Each user (subscriber, member, mailbox
owner) should control their own information
environment. We each are the best qualified
to say what we want to see, and what we
don't want to see, in our INBOX. Anytime
anyone else decides what should be in our
INBOX, a possible violation of this principle
has occurred. {SPAM is a prime example.}
LISTSERV is designed with this principle
firmly in mind. The user can control instantly,
whether they get individual messages,
DIGEST, INDEX, NOMAIL - you get the
picture. Because LISTSERV goes out of its
way to comply instantly with user wishes,
I can't find fault with LISTSERV on this
principle.
Clash Of Principles?
On the other hand, LISTSERV must provide
for its own survival. This, I could argue, is a
less fundamental issue than ownership
control of each information environment.
There are certainly more users with an INBOX
than there are LISTSERV members.
And Yet
LISTSERV disables a very small number of
the infinite available e-mail addresses, and
only to perform a near-mandatory protective
function.
On Balance
I see this as an entirely acceptable balance
between the principles involved. Only idiot
administrators and ignorant list owners are
inconvenienced. Almost everybody has utter
and immediate control of their own accounts.
I guess I'm okay with this state of affairs.
If L-Soft, in due time, chooses to create an
"Are you sure?" warning for people who, after
they deliberately remove the safety, are about
to shoot themselves squarely in the foot, I
can live with that, too. <shrug>
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Pax,
Ballew Kinnaman <[log in to unmask]> 206/463-2322
Discussion list owner:
Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/allergy/index.html
Arthritis ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/arthritis/index.html
PCHealth ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/pchealth/index.html
Latex Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/rubber/index.html
Thyroid ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/thyroid/index.html
|
