At 12:23 AM 11/14/98 -0500, Mark Hunnibell wrote:
>Ben Parker said:
>
>> You must subscribe to [log in to unmask] before you can set
>> yourself to NOACK NOMAIL there.
>
>and Rich Greenberg said:
>
>> I haven't tried this, but why don't you sub to the european list & set
>> yourself to NOMAIL NOACK there.
>
>I guess my reaction is: Doesn't that pretty much negate the value to the
>user in being involved on a list that is peered? There may be some
>technical benefits for the site owners in running peered lists, but this
>has to go down as one of the clumsiest "features" of LISTSERV from a user
>perspective that I have ever encountered.  I have to subscribe to a list
>just so I can tell it not to mail me anything? Brilliant.  Why can't the
>list that knows far better than I do where its peers are do that for me
>when I subscribe initially?

It's even weirder.  Half the time, the "right thing" to do is to
override the Reply-To header because it points to the site you're not
subscribed to.  Until this was pointed out to me, I couldn't figure out
why some of my posts were taking days to appear... they were being
bounced to the moderator since I "wasn't subscribed" to the PEACH
address, but I would be replying to the Reply-To header pointing there.

The advantage of the peering is lost on me as well... when I signed up,
the instructions gave the .SE address.  So here I am in the United States,
and most of the posts (I think) come from the U.S., but my subscription
goes through Sweden.

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Cheers,
Stan