In an  attempt to close  this endless thread, I  would like to  point out
that  it IS  possible  to disable  SIGNOFF  and SET  using  a list  exit.
However, this is a comparatively complex procedure that involves the list
maintainer, and  I think it should  remain this way. If  every list owner
could disable SET or SIGNOFF with a simple keyword, I think many would be
doing it  in circumstances where it  would be considered abusive  by most
people. Now,  running a list  where SIGNOFF is  disabled is likely  to be
illegal in many countries (although probably  not in the US). It would be
ok  for a  staff  list or  the  like, hopefully  you  have an  employment
contract that says  somewhere that the employee agrees  to follow company
regulations  and   keep  informed  of   changes  in  company   policy  or
regulations. Besides,  you define  their job,  and if  you say  their job
includes reading the  staff list, it is clearly a  breach of contract for
them to refuse to  read it. But "People who want to  sign off should just
ask me" doesn't cut it, even if  the cause is legitimate ("I just want to
know why  people are leaving, that's  all!") As a rule,  the organization
that  provides the  service tends  to  be the  one that  gets sued,  both
because the concept  of "list ownership" is still foreign  to the courts,
and because organizations generally have more money than individuals. The
burden is  then on the  site hosting the service  to prove that  the list
owner was responsible for causing  the problem, that the service provider
was not notified,  and that the service provider was  not negligent. From
the plaintiff's perspective, moving the lawsuit to the list owner is more
or less equivalent to losing it as there will not be any serious money to
be grabbed, so one can expect some serious resistance to the claims. This
is simply not  a comfortable situation to  be in, and I  don't think list
owners should be able to make this change on their own.
 
  Eric