On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:22:15 HNE Jean Bedard <[log in to unmask]> said: >>Users sign up for digestified rather than immediate delivery with 'SET >>listname DIGests', which is an alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL. This >>command is rejected if digests are not available for the list, however >>if the option is accepted and the list owner subsequently turns digests >>off, it will be treated like NOMAIL. > >May I suggest that, instead of rejecting SET listname DIGEST, it behaves >like SET listname MAIL, so that it becomes effective when/if the owner >decides to make it operational? The only difference is in the very rare case where a list owner first enables digests, and then decides to disable them after all. In such a case, I would expect the owner to warn the users abundantly and/or fix their subscriptions. Furthermore I wanted to avoid complaints from users with the following scenario: Joe is subscribed to a bunch of lists in their digested form, and goes on vacations for 2 weeks. Before going away he sets NOMAIL on all lists. When he comes back he finds out that: 1. He did not get partial digests for the period of time before he set NOMAIL. Joe thinks he should have got the messages posted before he sent the SET NOMAIL. 2. After sending a SET MAIL command, he got long digests which included messages posted while he had SET NOMAIL! A set of 2 options would make it legitimate for Joe to think that MAIL/NOMAIL controls which messages are shown to him, and DIGEST/NODIGEST controls how they are sent. With a single option, digests are an alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL - a means of getting the messages to you, and not a means of deciding which messages to show. Joe issues SET NOMAIL before going on vacations, and SET DIGESTS (not SET MAIL) when he comes back. At this point he starts getting the digests again, which is logical. Eric