On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Peter Rauch wrote:
 
> I suppose that one could identify other keywords (than the focus of
> this thread --FILTER) which some list owners would like to keep
> private, while other keywords would be ok to share.  This would lead to
> a situation where every conceivable combination of keywords might need
> to be divided into the "private" and "public" piles.
 
        I think there are very few features of the header that are as
sensitive as the list of filtered addresses, nor as needless for the
general public.
 
> How about just using the tools that are available now? Specifically,
> make the LIST file unreadable/unreviewable by all but the owner (that's
> possible, right??), and let the list owner take the responsibility to
> document those keywords which she is willing to share with the
> subscribers in a separate file.  That separate file could be
> the INFO template (of the mailtpl file), or the WELCOME file, or even a
> separate file, e.g., <listname>.pubkw (public keywords), installed via
> the SITE.CATALOG or FILELIST mechanisms.
 
        My list already HAS Review=Owner, but that doesn't stop people
from sending the command REVIEW [listname] SHORT and getting all the
settings, including the list of addresses I've filtered.  I already
HAVE a welcome letter--that goes to subscribers and would be totally
inappropriate for anyone else.
 
> That way, each owner gets to configure the sharing/concealing of
> keyword information exactly as she wishes. It works today --no waiting
> in line for new LISTSERV features.
 
        Normally, I'd agree with you.  I usually favor maximum
flexibility, so that each person can tailor things to meet her needs.
However, I have never seen any useful purpose served by having the
Filter info out where everyone can see it.  Also, while I have my list
set to Review=Owner, I can easily imagine many listowners not wanting
to take so drastic a step.  That does, after all, create considerable
inconvenience for subscribers (and thus for the listowner who has to
handle all their requests), and I strongly doubt that there's a
justification for displaying the Filtered addresses that outweighs the
inconvenience created by barring subscribers from using the REVIEW
command.
 
        Joan Korenman
 
*****************************************************************************
*    Joan Korenman                [log in to unmask]                         *
*    U. of Md. Baltimore County                                             *
*    Baltimore, MD 21228-5398     http://www-unix.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/  *
*                                                                           *
*    The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe  *
*****************************************************************************