I know this is an "old" thread of a few days ago, but I'm just catching
up.

The ability to lookup list owners in more capable ways than listserv
provides has been an ongoing problem for us. We are constantly being asked
"which lists" do I own or "xxxx is no longer employed, remove them from
list ownership", etc. With over 2000 lists, the reporting function is
not usable for this. Or am I missing something?

(Aside: is there a bug in the documentation? Narrow selection says "If
you have a particular group of lists that you want to query that all
contain the text "SALES" in the list name, for example, type "SALES"
into the box and click "Submit". This will narrow the lists displayed
to lists such as ..." However, it appears to search both the list NAME and
DESCRIPTION)

In addition, we find that we often need to notify the quiet owners as
well; there are some things they simply need to know. If people managed
quiet vs non-quiet designation better it wouldn't be a problem, but they
don't. It is good to hear that ALL-REQUEST is now limited to
postmasters/etc- we quit using that because people replied in autopilot (I
know, I probably should have known of this change sooner, but I didn't).

We also periodically have the need to send customized email to our owners.
For example, we query owners of lists with no activity as to whether the
list is viable. This is a laborious process of scanning the logs for
activity, mating the data with list ownership, and then generating
customized email.

So I now have a script that scans all of the list headers for owners, with
a caching mechanism to provide acceptable performance through a network
connection and over the large number of lists. And while I was at it, I
made it look through subscribers because q * for [log in to unmask] performs so
slowly (yes, I know about the high performance option, but it appears we
still have a performance issue that Lsoft has not been able to resolve).
And I can scan for certain list settings for whatever reasons (who has
sublists, who has confidential=no, etc., etc)

I still love the product.