A cautionary tale on this subject...

   There is yet another reason to set REVIEW to "owner" beyond that of
protecting subscribers from commercial spam, as I found to my cost two
years ago.  Naively, I had set REVIEW to "private," thinking that an
adequate layer of protection against address-harvesters.  Someone
subscribed who soon gave indications that he was about to post a
slanderous message about another listmember.  As I learned later, this
person had joined the list specifically in order to harrass and embarrass
someone already on the list with whom he was involved in a longstanding
dispute.  Thanks to the warning, I was able to unsubscribe this e-stalker
and filter his address before he was able to post the long attack he had
prepared. Unfortunately, he had already retrieved the subscriber-list, and
so after I removed him he proceeded to use it to send every single
subscriber a copy of his multi-page, name-calling diatribe.  (Those who
complained to him received obscene threats in reply.)  I was mortified, of
course, and yet entirely helpless to prevent it.

   Like others here, I let subscribers know that I am glad to provide a
fellow listmember's e-mail address upon request, and if a subscriber I
know to be reliable gives a reason for wanting the whole list, I'll send a
copy.  But there are simply too many nuts out there, quite apart from the
spammers, for it to be safe to let just anyone who subscribes retrieve
hundreds or even thousands of e-mail addresses to use as he or she likes.

Patrick Leary
listowner, VICTORIA and SHARP-L
[log in to unmask]