On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Dave Kinnaman wrote: > LSTSRV-L Folks, > > I want to *allow* anonymous posts to my list Allergy at > > [log in to unmask] If you mean that you want to permit postings from the anonymous e-mail server in finland (anon.penet.fi) which we have been discussing, you might want to contact the administrator there who goes by the name of 'Zarr' ([log in to unmask]). They have a filter on their system which explicitly prohibits mail from 'listserv' to any of their anonymous 'clients'. As was stated on this list, mail from 'listserv' goes to the administrator, not the subscriber who faked a subscription to your list. Thus, any subscriber to your list from that site, 1. Had to subvert the system to sub to your list and, 2. Will never see mail distributed from your list. > If I use the Filter = Also where I already have postmasters etc, will > that prevent > > SUBSCRIPTIONS or > > POSTS or > > both? First, I don't know where listserv gets the information from in the 'Also' when supplying in the list header a "* Filter= Also,..." I suspect that it is internal and is distributed with the code provided by Lsoft. As for the option discussed here, 'FILTER_ALSO', this is input provided by the postmaster and unless code has been built in to read this information, then it shouldn't apply. However, the header option of '* Filter= Also," and the configuation option of 'FILTER_ALSO' may very well be integrated, and if this is the case, then it would apply and suggest a terribly efficient way of handling them. At any rate, someone more knowledgeable than I could answer such an interesting question. Just as a point of interest. When the 'FILTER_ALSO' option was first advertized, I was initailly elated because this meant that I didn't have to send mail to all the listowners saying "you might want to filter this address out'...and it took some pressure off them with regard to time constraints....this is something they appreciate at times. :-) However, I felt a bit of a twinge of concern for listowners after I thought about it after reading a post from someone (sorry I can't recall who it was....but I recall the words to the effect of "Just food for thought"...and I usually remember the content of those posts) who suggested or implied that the FILTER_ALSO option might in some way have a negative impact on the control a listowner has over their list... and who can sub/post and who can't. While this 'anon.penet.fi' business is a good example for the use of FILTER_ALSO, I can see instances where it might be used in such a way as to inhibit control over a list that might infringe on a listowner's rights of control over his or her list. Granted this might speak to the broader issues of 'ethics' and integrity' and certainly there are commands that have long existed that could be used in such a manner, much to a listowner's dismay.... and thus perhaps this is just another one of them that requires more thought and justification similar to what one might give before issuing a 'serve userid@host off" command. But since I'm rather new to being a LISTSERV maintainer, I'm probably just being a tad sensitive on this issue. Just being a simple postmaster doesn't require such sensitivity or thought. :-) Enough said... --Trish > Please, I'm also interested in the same question from a SYSVARS point of > view (assuming TAMU has that kind of capability). 8=]' > > Thanks! > > Pax, Dave Information wants > Dave Kinnaman <[log in to unmask]> 512/463-9321 to be Free! >