At 06:59 PM 2/28/97 -0500, Les Moskowitz wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Feb, Debbie Douglass wrote:
>
>> From what I have read on this subject so far the prevailing
>> sentiment is not to disable this ability but simply make it
>> harder to alter the subscriber information so that it won't be
>> done unintentially. Since altering only the header information is
>> the desired result most of the time why not make this the
>> default?
>
>Your comment is an excellent example of failure to read.

I think she reads just fine.  However, she didn't quote some other
posts on the subject.  (Quoting multiple posts is not easy with
some MUA's.)  You should take what she wrote in the context of
the whole thread, not just your post and mine.

>Maybe you should try reading my message again.  I quoted and replied
>to the following:
>
>>> Going for three cents (pushing my luck here, I know) why not
>>> just completely disable the ability to PUT subscriber lists,
>>> since there are other ways, reportedly always safer, to do this?

I wrote that...

>Do the words "COMPLETELY DISABLE THE ABILITY TO PUT SUBSCRIBER LISTS"
>mean anything to you?

...and I should clarify.  I'm a UNIX hacker from way back, and I appreciate
the ability to do all sorts of obscure things with simple-to-complex
scripts.  I didn't mean disable the *FUNCTIONALITY* of the *PUT*
command -- just "move" it to something else.  If you had to replace
PUT with something like PUT_AND_I_REALLY_MEAN_THE_SUBSCRIBER_LIST_TOO
it wouldn't affect your ability to do what you want, but it would
get the side effects "out of the way" of the list owner who makes a
mistake in her/his email commands.  Of course, my example command syntax
there is kind of silly, but anything not default would do, such as:
        PUTALL
        PUT (EVERYTHING
etc.

Might I presume that would meet your needs?

Cheers,
Stan