> For me it will serve a situation where I need to open many lists (around the
> 1000 figure) for academic courses and I know List owners won't be the kind of
> people who would care too much, or have the time to get themselves knowledgeable
> about changing the list header. If they do, it could be all wrong.

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 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 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. 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.

  Eric