Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - COMMUNITY.EMAILOGY.COM
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - LSTOWN-L Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

LSTOWN-L Archives

LISTSERV List Owners' Forum

LSTOWN-L

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
LSTOWN-L Home LSTOWN-L Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Holding a list
From:
Pete Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LISTSERV list owners' forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:27:13 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
>
>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.

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).

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

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

/Pete

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

COMMUNITY.EMAILOGY.COM CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV