On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Dennis Budd wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Peter Rauch wrote:
> > Douglas, You're being cryptic and piecemeal about your list's
> > configuration and your exact needs.
>
> He's told you more than you're giving him credit for.

Nope.

> > We now learn you are on an
> > intranet; what does that mean? I.e., does that mean that only
> > folks with access to your intranet have "public" access to your
> > list's archive?
>
> To the web site providing access to archive.

You still need the appropriate LISTSERV access permissions for
that list.

> > Does that mean that "one idiot" is inside your
> > intranet?
>
> No. It means that the "idiot" has e-mail access to the Listserv server
> itself, which I presume is connected to the Internet.  It wouldn't
> make any sense for it not to be.  (Am I correct, Douglas?)

But, he also needs appropriate access permissions to the list's
archive.

> >  Who is the "general public" as distinct from the
> > "public" NOTEBOOK of your list? How are they "filtered"?
>
> They're not filtered; there's no way to do it except for a
> "special purpose" firewall; that seems to be his problem.

He said they were "filtered". Is he using SERVE (off), FILTER=,
SERVICE=, NOTEBOOK= (only-these-folks), etc? If not, would any
combination of these features work?

> > Why can't you simply subscribe each of the "few thousand members
> > of the Judiciary" (yes, it's work validating their membership
> > and ADDing them to the list, but you seem to have very stringent
> > needs that might warrant such work)?
>
> That's a good question.
>
> That solution would probably require some continuing
> maintenance work as well.  However, it's the only sure way to
> keep the harvesters out.

No. It would only allow those who are "members of the Judiciary"
to be ADDed to the list. :>)
Peter