I apologize for the late response, one of those things I meant to do
but didn't get to at the time.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Eric Thomas wrote:
> Being  an editor  and being  on REVIEW  are mutually  conflicting states.
> Since a message cannot be half approved and half rejected, one has to win
> over the other, and in 14.3 this was changed so that the editor wins. You
> can make a rationale for either to win over the other. Mine is that:
>
> - A list header option, which can only  be set explicitly and by the list
>   owner,  is closer  to  the  human decision  maker  than a  subscription
>   option, which is usually set via "Default-Options=" nowadays.
>
> - A list where every  editor is on REVIEW would have  a problem if REVIEW
>   were to win over "Editor=".

>   Eric
> [This message is forwarded from a private list where this same matter was
> discussed, to answer the question why the unexpected happened.  BP]

With this proposed new scheme, editor trumping review, rather than
review trumping editor, as it has always been in the past, will, it seems
to me, make hash of this setup, which many lists use:

* Send= Editor
* Editor= id@address,(LISTNAME)
* Default-Options= REVIEW

This is used so that postings from new subscribers will be vetted by the
listowner (or editor if different).  It prevents "subscribing to spam"
and other ills.

If "editor" trumps "review" the listowner can no longer use review as
a list control measure.

I hope that you will reconsider and have review take precedence over
editor, as it always has in the past.

Why the sudden about face, in violation of precedent?  Why, previously,
did you think that it was proper for review to override editor, but now
you think editor should trump review?

Douglas Winship  [log in to unmask]