But that still wouldn't preclude a coup. Defacto if nothing else, right? Bryan Fritchie <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent by: "LISTSERV cc: list owners' forum" Subject: Re: coup fears... <[log in to unmask] .LSOFT.COM> 06/19/2003 10:47 AM Please respond to "LISTSERV list owners' forum" Since this appears to be an issue, is there a possibility that future versions can specifically have both an Owner and a Co-Owner property? That way a Co-Owner could do just about everything except replace the Owner. Both Owner and Co-Owner could still allow multiple entries, but then there would be a definitive meaning between the different roles. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Winship" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [LSTOWN-L] coup fears... > Paul Karagianis wrote: > > Ditto. Every couple of months I do a "LIST DETAILED" and file the > > resulting master list of all 600+ headers at this site away so I can > > have a history of the "primary owner" (the first owner listed in the > > header) as the final authority in ownership disputes. > > That is not a bad idea. However, you cannot rely on the first listed > owner being the "real," "primary" owner. Sometimes the "coowner" is > the first listed, so that he will get, if not specified by keywords > with addresses, the administrative stuff so the "real" owner doesn't > have to mess with such. The "primary owner" is down there under QUIET. > > Douglas Winship > [log in to unmask] > >