At 10:09 07/09/2001 Monday, David Devereaux-Weber wrote: >Does Listserv include Listserv commands in the list of suspicious terms in >a "Subject:' header? > >If not, is it possible to add "unsub*" to the list of suspicious subjects? It might be possible, but not necessarily needed i.e., if the body is empty, the posting is rejected regardless of the subject: Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:11:41 -0400 X-PH: V4.1@f05n11 From: "L-Soft list server at LISTS.PSU.EDU (1.8d)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask] To: "Pete Weiss -- Sr. Systems Engineer Penn State" <[log in to unmask]> LISTSERV does not allow the distribution of empty messages to a mailing list, because some users are unable to see the "Subject:" field from the original message. ------------------------ Rejected message (14 lines) -------------------------- Received: from sysop5.psu.edu (sysop5.oas.psu.edu [128.118.110.199]) by f05n16.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA165234 for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:11:40 -0400 Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:11:40 -0400 To: [log in to unmask] From: Pete LS Weiss <[log in to unmask]> Subject: unsub Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Also, it may be counter to good mailing list management -- some Subject:s that contain LISTSERV commands may be perfectly valid topics of conversation. When this occurs in the body (first line), the message is rejected with auto-suggestions on how to "fool" the semantics check. I'm sure that the same rules would NOT apply to a Subject:. /Pete Weiss