I guess I'll never understand Anglo-Saxons  :-) All right, so you want an
option to  be able  to edit  people's postings in  their back  while they
naively think that nothing of the sort  is happening. Then one day one of
your victims will  find out and let  the world know, and boy  will you be
embarrassed.  Then  your  list  will  spend  a  fortnight  talking  about
censorship and  similarly fascinating  and on-topic issues.  Switching to
full moderation would incur the risk  that people decide Big Brother took
over and  leave the list,  so you won't  do it. Instead  you'll apologize
until you're  red in the face  and swear never  to do it again  and could
everyone please  stop sending the  hate mail  (yes, and above  all, could
everyone  please stop  cc:ing *ME*  on the  hate mail  because, sorry  to
disappoint  you but  I'm not  the Anti-Christ  pulling the  ropes in  the
background). So,  why don't I  just save myself  the time and  not bother
implementing it. If I wanted to use REVIEW for newcomers, I'd make it the
default option and explain in the  welcome message that all newcomers are
set to  REVIEW until they've posted  X messages or for  Y days, whichever
takes longer,  and every time  they post rubbish  that I have  to filter,
they  start over  with X  and Y.  Then if  a newcomer  seems sincere  and
clueful I'd reset the flag right away, and he'd be very happy. Even if he
decided to go public about this  favour, there wouldn't be any particular
problem, assuming  of course that what  he posted WAS interesting  and on
topic. Technically these  two systems accomplish exactly  the same thing,
operationally they are perfectly legitimate  and consistent with the goal
of keeping people on  the list talking about what the  list is about, but
culturally one is  called "segregation" whereas the other  is "fair". The
"fair" system  is already implemented and  doesn't involve the risk  of a
sudden  flame  fest on  your  list.  I don't  see  any  advantage to  the
segregatory system.
 
  Eric