Alan Hamilton writes:
> I consider changing the list header a "dangerous operation" that I
> do only when I have to.  It's too easy to make a mistake and delete
> the header, or create a problem that isn't easily fixed without
> calling on the help of an overworked listserv manager.<<
 
Eleftheria Maratos-Flier <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Is there anything intrinsically dangerous about it?  I keep two copies
> of the header on my disk.  One has errors-to me the other has errors
> to my co-owner. Otherwise they are identical.  When we switch of I
> change the name of the file and send it to the listserver using the
> CMS command "sendfile".
 
I didn't mean to imply that it was intrinsically dangerous.  I should
have spelled out that when I came on as one of the list owners, the
original owner warned me that he had occasionally managed to delete
the list.  He said that one way that had happened was by having a .sig
file included unintentionally.  (I don't understand it, I just know
what he said.)  Therefore, I have been extremely chary about replacing
the header myself and screwing something up royally.  ;-)
 
It seems pretty clear, from the fact that many people update their
list header fairly regularly, that it is pretty robust once you have
done it and if you continue to do it the same way.
 
By the way, congratulations on the two-header technique!  It sounds
like an excellent way to handle the handoff process.
 
 -Alan Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>, one of the UUS-L Administrators