At 15:56 8/12/2005 Friday, Hal Keen wrote:
>> All true, BUT isn't that more or less a Rube Goldberg?
>
>I have a high a regard for elegance as anyone, but in this case I think the
>specific-date maneuver IS reasonably elegant. The setting can be removed
>after it's served its purpose, and it is well-adapted to the situation.
>
>That is, providing the list isn't too large. I don't know how many probes,
>all triggered at once, is a good idea. What I was contemplating was setting
>NORENEW on everyone, then making the transition a little at a time with
>    set <listname> renew for a*@*
>    set <listname> renew for b*@*
>etc. through the alphabet, over the course of a month or so, and counting on
>the period of inactivity to cause the probes to be sent to practically
>everyone.

If a list has been quiesced for a long enough period of time, such that you need to validate subscribers, then some addresses will have changed AND STILL be able to receive list email / probes but then those subscribers will be unable to change their own subscriptions.

I believe that likely scenario reduces the utility of the elegant solution.  The elegant solution is useful for bouncing addresses that can't be otherwise IDed (and generating a report) allowing them to be removed, as necessary.

Or maybe I just don't "get it?" [which is possible].

/Pete