On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:36:34 -0600 Dan Lester said:
>This is something I've never understood....the requirement for full names.

I don't much care if people make up a name -- they'll usually remember
their alias.  And if they have trouble giving a real name I'll encourage
an fabricated one, as long as they promise to try to remember what it was
when it comes time to unsubscribe.

It is an incredible pain tracking people down without a name, which is the
primary reason we require it.  If a name is *obviously* fabricated, like
"firstname lastname" or "mailing list" then it will be questioned, but other
than that, almost anything goes.  This has saved us incredible amounts of
trouble.

>It seems particularly meaningless for the vast majority of lists in
>which no one but the listowner can review the membership anyway.

Then I'll turn that around and say "Why offer the ability to remain
anonymous if nobody but the owner can review the membership anyway?"

Bill