TRUTH - Geoffrey Peters wrote:
> This is a discussion I was having privately with Nathan.
 
Oh, then I wonder how it ever leaked onto this list. :)
 
> My approach is to LOUDLY ;-) delete members after receiving error messages
 
I also "loudly" SET NOMAIL for users.
 
>   1. I wait at least a day before deleting them to be sure
 
I also wait for multiple error messags to accumulate, to avoid jumping at
shadows.
 
>   2. If the person does somehow regain access before I delete them, then
>      the (loud) DEL usually wakes them up and I get a message that says
>      "Uh... Why did you delete me?".
>      If I do a set NOMAIL, however, the user will simply see there mail
>      cease to appear or a more curious message about not receiving any
>      messages.
 
This is not true for my list, although I do not know why it might be
different for yours; when I (loudly) SET NOMAIL, a message goes out to the
subscriber to inform them of this change in their subscription settings.
 
>      In any event, the user will still likely contact the
>      listowner asking what has happened.
 
Which is exactly what happened to me recently--a user whose host was
generating "unable to deliver mail for 1 day, will keep trying for X days"
messages was SET to NOMAIL.  When she received the notification of NOMAIL,
she sent me a message asking why that was.
 
>   3. If the subscriber does not get the message, they will still
>      likely respond to the listowner directly or resubscribe manually.
>      If they do the later, there is a chance for duplicate addresses
 
This is where personal attention is given to the user.  I save one or two
copies of any multiple error message that comes my way.  I also store the
confirmation of NOMAIL.  When users complain, I can remind myself why and
can then quote them the error messages and explain the situation.
 
>   4. Lastly, the main reason why I use DEL over NOMAIL is because it
>      keeps the database clean. How do you all control all of the
>      NOMAIL users that start to accumulate in the database without
>      forcing an ugly confirmation ordeal?
 
Control all of the NOMAIL users?  Why?  So long as LISTSERV isn't going to
complain, I won't complain.  Sure, someday I'll do a QUERY listname FOR *@*
and then QUIET DELETE the long-term NOMAILed users.  In a list of 200,
that's not a big deal, nor a big priority.
 
> Oh well, my two cents! The real reason, of course, is because I never
> knew of the NOMAIL option when I started 5 years ago and just happily DELed
 
Ah, blissful ignorance!  ^_^  I see what you mean.
 
- Michael;   NAUSICAA list owner: <[log in to unmask]>
 
[ Michael S. Johnson <[log in to unmask]> Computer Science, U of W ]
[ WWW index: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~msj  home: ~msj/msj.html ]