>
>Wouldn't setting everyone to NOPOST do the same thing? (And yes, you
>would definitely have to tell everyone or they would freak!) Of
>course, if you have some people set to nopost for some reason, you
>would need to get a list of them so you could set them back after you
>sent in the "SET LISTNAME POST FOR *@*" command. Is there a reason
>why "Send= Editor,Hold,Confirm" would be better?

Issuing list-wide SETs is resource intensive.  You also need to update
the list definition anyways so that NEW subscribers default to NOPOST.

Then when you return, you have to remember to undo all of that (assuming
of course there aren't some subscribers who you want in NOPOST status).

Finally, NOPOST causes the email to be rejected, as opposed to being
forwarded to the OWNER for later disposition.

Regardless, there are pros and cons for each scenario and YMMV.

/Pete