>It seems to me... not that that means much.. a useful function might be the >ability to control a subscribers ability to modify their settings. > >If I could set them nomail/digest/index etc.. and they could not change >it... > >How many times have you encountered subscribers with limited mailboxes... >frequently not checking or going out of town.. set them nomail.. they come >back.. alter back to mail... catch 22.. > >Laziness on the part of posters would appear to me to be one of the most >challenging of duties a list owner addresses.. > >Quoting entire posts in response rather than editing for quality >discussion.. forwarding attachments rather than cutting and pasting germain >information.. well you all know... [. . .] I'm presumably missing something, but I don't see how the ability to control a subscriber's ability to modify their settings would help solve any of the problems above. In terms of people who chronically bounce messages, if it's really irksome a listowner could add them to '* Filter=' or the LISTSERV maintainer could SERVE them OUT or add them to TRAPIN and/or TRAPOUT. This will prevent them from resubscribing and thus from receiving mailing list mail, which is about what a permanent NOMAIL setting will do. As far as excessive quoting (which I hope I'm not guilty of here) and attachments, there are various tools already at your disposal, including but not limited to '* Sizelim=' and setting problem users to REVIEW or NOPOST (settings which the user cannot generally alter without the help of the listowner). I guess my point is that new tools are being added to LISTSERV (see all the changes from 1.8c to 1.8d, for instance) and I think that's good, but I don't (yet) see what the value of allowing a listowner to control a subscriber's ability to modify his or her settings would be. -jwgh