On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Pete Weiss wrote:
> At 10:11 03/04/2004 Thursday, Winship wrote:
>  >I never set a sub. to NOMAIL for errors.  Better to just delete it and
>  >be done with it.
>
> On some lists that I co-own, when we detect certain problems, we may set
> the subscriber(s) to NOMAIL *and* NOPOST.  We don't use NOPOST for any
> other reason.  Thus if the subscriber sets themself (later) to MAIL (but
> can't set POST) and then tries to post, followed by complaining to
> list-owners that they can't, we then tell them WHY we set them to NOMAIL
> in the first place (thank goodness for FIND).

A lot depends on the type of list it is.  I use DIGEST rather than NOMAIL
because, well, they ain't getting the mail anyway, so they won't notice
being NOMAIL, but they will notice being DIGEST rather than MAIL when the
problem is resolved (if it ever is).  Using NOMAIL the user is likely not
aware of any change, if hasn't been getting the listmail anyway, but will
immediately notice receipt of DIGEST rather than MAIL.

The NOPOST idea is good, unless the vast majority of your subscibers are
lurkers (mine are);  they never post to the list so will never notice that
they are set NOPOST.  They will, though, notice being DIGEST rather than
MAIL, as soon as the problem clears up.

Douglas Winship  [log in to unmask]