At 10:44 AM 4/20/97 -0800, Sherry Beauchamp wrote:
>At 9:46 PM -0800 4/19/97, Dan Lester wrote:
>>Another angle is to have one as Bparker@....    and one as bparker@....
>>
>>On some systems those would be treated differently and it wouldn't work for
>>the user, but on many/most  they would be the same.  To LISTSERV they are
>>different.
>
>I've found that while LISTSERV will add a second subscription for the same
>address if the syntax if different (SLB@ and slb@), any commands I send
>regarding settings for either address will affect both addresses (i.e.
>quiet set nomail for slb@ will affect both SLB@ and slb@).

I tried some experiments of my own with a different account of mine I
subscribe on-and-off to my own list for testing.

It was already subscribed as "stanr@"; as a "new" user I tried to
subscribe as "STaNr@" which proceded to merely change my "name" on
the stanr@ subscription.

However, from the listowner account, I was able to *add* [log in to unmask]

I didn't try changing options (either from the account or from the owner's
account), but when I did a signoff from the STaNr@ address, I got this
(xxx... replaces list identification):
>To: STan Ryckman <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> signoff xxx-l
>The following addresses, which all belong to you, have been removed from the
>xxx-L list:
>
>  [log in to unmask]
>  [log in to unmask]
>
>Summary of resource utilization
[etc.]

Hmmmm.

Seems inconsistent to me.  (BTW, that's a 1.8c list)

Also, the notification sent to the list-owner account said only:
>STan Ryckman  <[log in to unmask]> has just  signed off the  xxx-L list
>(xxxxxxxxx List).
No mention of the second removal.

I think the RFC's say that everything to the left of "@" is potentially
case-sensitive (except for specifically "postmaster", which must be
accepted in any mix of case), so that stanr and STaNr might
indeed be two distinct users.  Given that my ISP treats them both as me,
I *should* be able to use this "trick" since LISTSERV shouldn't be able
to "know" here that stanr and STaNr are not two distinct subscribers.

I could be missing something; if so, somebody tell me please.
>
>Sherry
>
Cheers,
Stan