On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Nathan Brindle wrote:
 
> I don't think you'd want to suppress the listname-REQUEST message.  There
> are too many people out there who don't understand that if they don't send
> their commands to LISTSERV, nothing happens.  The default acknowledgement
> says basically, if you wanted to write to the list owners, fine, otherwise
> you need to resend your commands to [log in to unmask]
 
You're right - I wouldn't want to either. The answers on this have been
very instructive, though I'm a bit embarassed that I didn't remember the
change from the release notes. Too fast a read, I suppose!
 
What I don't
> understand is why it's necessary for the list owner to send anything to
> the listname-REQUEST address.  Wouldn't it be simpler to set up a mailing
> list (listname-OWNERS or something like that) to handle this sort of thing?
 
There were, at one time, 4 listowners - each of whom had multiple
accounts from which they might be managing and signing on at any given
time. At one time, it was simpler to use listname-Request because it
avoided cluttering the boxes of those who had particular addresses
"signed off" and at the same time was efficient in reaching those who
were "signed on". Actually, we've had a number of changes recently, and
so this suggestion would probably work fine now.
 
Thanks to *all* who replied. Your thoughts have been quite useful.
 
Sylvie McGee
Administrator - Quaker-L/Quaker-P
[log in to unmask]
University Friends' Meeting - seattle wa