> >What you say is generally true, but there are exceptions.  One example
> >is where the management of an organization wants to be able to send
> >email to all employees.  As long as you are employed there, you don't
> >have the right to unsubscribe from such a list.
> >
> >Another case might be where you have agreed to be on a list as
> >a condition of receiving some service.
>
> Even then, there might be good reasons (e.g., temporary software
> maintenance) which might make an employee's unsubbing or setting oneself
> to NOMAIL useful. I suppose one would want to block SET options then as
> well?  It's not like the owner can't tell if someone has unsubbed from
> his/her list.
 
Temporary software maintenance justifies unsubscribing or setting
NOMAIL for a low-volume employee announcement list, but not stopping
all other mail?  I think you need a better example.
 
Blocking SETs would make sense in our case because they will just
be overridden when the bulk replacement of subscribers occurs.
 
I happen to be the owner of our staff list.  What do you suggest
I do if someone unsubscribes?
 
> I see a "Dilbert" here, somewhere :)
>
> -Dave Phillips
 
I like Dilbert too.  I'd say there's a lot more Dilbert potential
in what might be posted to a staff announcement list than the
existence of the list itself.