On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:26:40 CDT, Paul Russell said:
> On 10/22/2004 12:02 PM, Siegfried Schmitt wrote:
> > A few months ago, one of our local list owners asked me to create a
> > special super-list. He told me to create three lists (list1, list2, list3)
> > with the following configuration:
> >
> > list1:
> >    sub-lists= list2,list3
> >
> > list2:
> >    sub-lists= list1,list3
> >
> > list3:
> >    sub-lists= list1,list2
> >
> > You can see, that every list is both a sub-list and a super-list of the
> > other two lists. I thought that this would create some kind of loop and I
> > was really astonished to see that it worked (on a 1.8d LISTSERV).
>
> Given the fact that a message posted to any list will be distributed to
> subscribers on all lists, I fail to see why there is a need for multiple
> lists. Why not just use one list?

I can easily see a case where for local political reasons, there is person A
who is trusted to update the subscribers list for list1, but not trusted for
list2 or list3, and similarly persons B and C who are only trusted to update
their own sub-portion of the subscribers.

What, you've never had to deal with rival departments who are worried that The
Other Admin(*) is going to do a 'quiet del', post something important, and then
do a 'quiet add', just to keep somebody in the dark?

(*) Yes, yes, I know *very* well that 3 minutes with the Listserv logs will
reveal the culprit - but remember that rationality and logic never apply in
these political turf wars... ;)