At 3:27 PM -0400 10/16/00, Pete Weiss wrote:
>>Wouldn't setting everyone to NOPOST do the same thing? (And yes, you
>>would definitely have to tell everyone or they would freak!) Of
>>course, if you have some people set to nopost for some reason, you
>>would need to get a list of them so you could set them back after you
>>sent in the "SET LISTNAME POST FOR *@*" command. Is there a reason
>>why "Send= Editor,Hold,Confirm" would be better?
>
>Issuing list-wide SETs is resource intensive.  You also need to update
>the list definition anyways so that NEW subscribers default to NOPOST.

Oh, right. But maybe for a small list, it might be the easier avenue.
For a list of a thousand or more, maybe not so wise because of the
drain on the server.

>Then when you return, you have to remember to undo all of that (assuming
>of course there aren't some subscribers who you want in NOPOST status).

I don't have people on NOPOST on my lists for very long. If they
belong there more than a day or two, they are kicked off of the list.
However, that IS a consideration. I hadn't remembered the new
subscribers though, so I would have fouled things up myself.

>Finally, NOPOST causes the email to be rejected, as opposed to being
>forwarded to the OWNER for later disposition.

Which would be a good thing in this scenario...assuming everyone has
been informed that the list is being stopped temporarily, of course.

>Regardless, there are pros and cons for each scenario and YMMV.

Or, as the saying goes, "Nothing is simple."

Mary