Personally I have by lists set to CONCEAL by default; the reason being is
that we don't want our competitors to be able to access potentially valuable
mailing lists.... the most active users are already known anyway.

On the other hand it does make some management tasks a pain, such as having
to use GET to review the list of members (thank you to whoever for the
report option in 1.8e)

Martin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Winship" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: concealed members


> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Wayne T. Smith wrote:
> > Winship wrote:
> > >>I prefer not to have concealed members on my list and right now I have
four.
> > >>The command "set vwar-l noconceal for *.*" doesn't work.
> > > It's *@*, not *.* .  I would strongly advise doing it QUIETly, though.
> > I would strongly advise that you NOT change CONCEAL subscribers without
> > their knowledge.
>
> They may think it is important, but if REVIEW is restricted to listowner
> it is a functionally meaningless option as the listwoner can see the
> subscription, but no one else can, CONCEAL or not.  And then those with
the
> silly CONCEAL option will go and post to the list, blowing their "cover."
>
> In, oh, about 12 years of quietly changing CONCEALs to NOCONCEAL for many
> hundreds of subscribers, on several lists with REVIEW restricted to OWNER,
> I have yet to get a single gripe.  They set it because it sounds "neat"
> without understanding what it does.  Well, let them think of it as they
> please, don't disabuse them of the harmless pleasure of thinking they are
> pulling a fast one on the listowner.  CONCEAL makes no real difference to
> the listowner, other than occaisional inconveniece.  They never do a
QUERY,
> but if do they likely won't realize the lack of mention of CONCEAL means
> they are NOCONCEAL.  Do it QUIET. They aren't harmed, it saves you
trouble,
> everyone is happy.
>
> Douglas Winship
> winship*ccsi.com