On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:41:58 +0000 Duane Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>First, I have a very active list of 700 to 1400 members, and fully half
>the bounces are from the 50 AOL subscribers. OK, I'll live with that.

Why should you?  On a list I co-own, there are about 500 subscribers, and
about 75 to 100 messages posted a day (discussing the Ford Taurus SHO).  The
primary owner who gets all the bounces (mostly from AOL users' perpetually
full mailboxes) decided long ago that ALL AOL subscribers would get set
permanently to digest when they signed up, no questions asked.  There was
some whining at first, but the people who really wanted "instant" message
delivery switched providers; the others tolerated being set to digest out of
respect for the list owners' sanity.

Now to your case: If I owned your list and had your frustrations with AOL's
inability to stem the abuse from obnoxious posters creating their own
pseudonyms, I would set the list to not accept postings from *@AOL.COM  If
people abused from JUNO.COM or some other service, I would do the same.
Legitimate subscribers from AOL (a mere 50 out of 700 total) will only be
able to read your list and not post to it; if they're unhappy, let THEM
pressure AOL to change its ways, or let THEM switch to a provider that runs
a tighter ship than AOL.  Surely the other non-AOL subscribers to your list
are as fed-up as you and will back you in your efforts; you'll definitely
have their support if you announce that Plan B is to shut down the list
entirely out of frustration.

Don't let the problem (this woman) run you, make the problem (her)
self-destruct on its (her) own.  It sounds harsh, but you should not suffer
agony and anguish as a result of providing a valuable service like your
list.  It is simply not your fault.

Just my 2 cents worth.  Good luck.

-- John Witherspoon
   Co-Owner SHOtimes-l