"Eric Thomas (CERN)" <ERIC@CEARN>
Tue, 5 Apr 88 01:40:00 GVA
|
I have added a new pair of options to the 'SET listname XXXX' command:
CONCEAL/NOCONCEAL. The default is NOCONCEAL, and means that your subscription
to the specified list is not to be considered confidential. That is, users can
see that you are on the list by means of the REVIEW command (as they have
always been able to do up to now).
"Green gemstone men" can use the 'SET listname CONCEAL' command to prevent
this from happening. Their entries will simply not appear on the output of a
REVIEW command, although the total number of concealed users will be displayed
in the statistics at the bottom. The GET command still shows everybody. If it
didn't, you'd be effectively removed from the list when it is stored back.
When you subscribe to a list, you are now told that users will be able to
determine that you are on it, and that they will even see your name, not just
your network address. You are instructed to issue a 'SET listname CONCEAL'
command if you do not like it. This blurb is automatically removed if the list
is set to "Review= Owner" or "Review= Postmaster".
When mail is set without "Mail-via= Distribute", a separate mailfile is sent
to each of the concealed users, so that other people cannot see them in the
'To:' field. This may result in an increase in network load, and will
definitely results in an increase of CPU time consumption by LISTSERV as
several tests and parsing instructions had to be inserted where there was
originally none. Of course, nothing prevents your average VMS mailer to send a
piece of mail back to the message sender with one of the confidential
addresses into it, and a multiline rambling message that will make you start
philosophizing about the unavoidability of operating systems with acronym
names sharing a common heritage, and the influence of alien life forms on
today's major operating systems. Since there is nothing I can do about that, I
did not try to do anything about it.
And, of course, it took me more time to type this note than to write the
corresponding code. And it probably took Thomas 5 times as much time to write
his original plea, not to mention the subsequent replies. I just hope we will
now consider the subject closed and will get back to real productive work. I
also hope that this last (well now it's the next-to-last :-) ) sentence will
not start a religious debate - hundreds of reasonable persons have tried to
make me a bit more tolerant and broad-minded, but they have always failed
miserably, so I don't think you stand any good chance at all :-)
Eric
|
|
|