On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:34:18 -0500, "Accentuated Brandname Creativity, Inc."
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Does submitting a job with your password on the top line not make it
>unnecessary to repeat your password on the subsequent lines,

No.  Each command is processed separately.  LISTSERV has no memory of the
command processed immediately before and its authentication credentials.
Although in this case the sequential commands are coming from the same origin,
that is not true in the more general case.  So each command must include its
own authentication or LISTSERV will ask for it.  Since this command job will
be coming in via email, if you don't include the PW= on each line, you will
get 3300 separate 'request for confirmation' emails back.  I am quite sure you
don't want that to happen.  

There is a way to group all the commands into one 'block' that only requires 1
authentication:

OK BEGIN
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? 
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? 
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? 
...
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? 
OK END

Notice however that there is no place to enter your password in this
structure.  Instead LISTSERV will send you back one 'request for confirmation'
email (containing a listing of all 3300 lines and some other words of
explanation).  You respond (by email reply or by clicking on the web link
provided) and then the commands will all be processed under one
authentication.

Having done these kind of list/site transfers before it is my opinion that it
is easier/faster to construct the bulk job this way

quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? pw=your_password
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? pw=your_password
quiet pwc add [log in to unmask] ?????? pw=your_password

because you can use search/replace in your text editor to add the 'quiet pwc
add ' to the front and the ' pw=your_password' at the end.  This job will
execute immediately when sent.  I don't have to wait for a (large)
confirmation email coming back from LISTSERV.  Also not as many people know
about the OK BEGIN/OK END syntax and it is harder to explain.  (notice this
explanatory email reply is approx 3X as long as my previous one.)