But that still wouldn't preclude a coup.  Defacto if nothing else, right?



                      Bryan Fritchie
                      <[log in to unmask]>         To:      [log in to unmask]
                      Sent by: "LISTSERV           cc:
                      list owners' forum"          Subject: Re: coup fears...
                      <[log in to unmask]
                      .LSOFT.COM>


                      06/19/2003 10:47 AM
                      Please respond to
                      "LISTSERV list
                      owners' forum"






Since this appears to be an issue, is there a possibility that future
versions can specifically have both an Owner and a Co-Owner property?  That
way a Co-Owner could do just about everything except replace the Owner.
Both Owner and Co-Owner could still allow multiple entries, but then there
would be a definitive meaning between the different roles.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Winship" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [LSTOWN-L] coup fears...


> Paul Karagianis wrote:
> > Ditto.  Every couple of months I do a "LIST DETAILED" and file the
> > resulting master list of all 600+ headers at this site away so I can
> > have a history of the "primary owner" (the first owner listed in the
> > header) as the final authority in ownership disputes.
>
> That is not a bad idea. However, you cannot rely on the first listed
> owner being the "real," "primary" owner.  Sometimes the "coowner" is
> the first listed, so that he will get, if not specified by keywords
> with addresses, the administrative stuff so the "real" owner doesn't
> have to mess with such.  The "primary owner" is down there under QUIET.
>
> Douglas Winship
> [log in to unmask]
>
>