At 16:29 11/18/2005 Friday, Patrick B. O'Brien wrote:
>Are sub-lists beneficial to anyone out there?
>
>Any quick, how too, notes on it? 

They are better than when first released and some annoying behaviors corrected (so if you look at the archives, take problem reports in that context).

From an hierarchical organizational  perspective, I think they're great.  We had lists of lists of lists i.e., I think we had a maximum of three levels.  In certain cases, folks were on more than one list, but of course only received one message.

Off the top of my head (and as far as I can remember since I haven't thought about his for 13 months) ...

I prefer the list definition DEFAULT-OPTIONS= SUBJECT

Problems / Issues that can result:

If mail bounces, which sub-list(s) are they on?

Who can post? 

If a list definition needs to be updated, how much of a problem is that including who is authorized to do so?

If an owner leaves, how to adjust the sub-lists.

What level of LISTSERV (the latest has some additional list configuration controls)?

How often is the structure going to change (or be reinvented)? 

Since a sub-list may be the target of multiple super-lists, keeping track of that in case a sub-list name has to change.

Will these sub-lists have cross-purposes e.g., person-to-group postings v. batch_job-to-group -- this could implact dup and anti-spam controls.

I have found that having a special intra sub-list of owners is effective

special_list

OWNER= b,c,d,e

Then each sublists has as owner=

OWNER= a,(special_list)

(parens required syntactical elements).

Also recommended:

CONFIDENTIAL= YES or SERVICE
SUBSCRIPTION= OWNER
NOTIFY= YES
SEND= (think about the various control / confirmation mechanisms -- might interact with DEFAULT-OPTIONS= )

/Pete Weiss,
retired, unplugged, but not disconnected