This isn't some current disaster plagueing the site, but after many years
of not anticipating the problem, and then seeing it come up several times
to extents ranging from near practical-joke level to near bibical disaster,
the after-the-fact fix that SJU will probably adapt will probably be in
the form of a list-constitution declaration list optionally available
for those lists that don't conform to the conventional view that listowner
equates to list, uh, messiah or parent organization or whatever.  I'm
suggesting that a smarter way to avoid this would be some provision for
noting the same in the header.
                                             -Kary

On 21 Dec 98, at 8:58, Pete Weiss wrote:

>To summarize (if I might): I think there is an implicit social contract
>that occurs when a constituency gains access to a host's "free" list
>processing facilities.  Unfortunately, list-owners and perhaps list-host
>maintainers fail to follow throufh.  Trying to "fix it" after it breaks
>seems to be what this current thread is about.
>
>/Pete