SIGNOFF commands have always been a problem with uneducated users. Sigh /Eric
+------------------------------------------------+
| Eric Thomas <ERIC@FRECP11>                     |
| World's best expert on super-duper signatures  |
| Director of the Audit Division's Flaming Group |
| (blah blah)                                    |
| Ecole Centrale de Paris, France                |
+------------------------------------------------+
 
.........................................................................
>    Good grief.  And when I am through clearing the chad off my machine,
>I can dump the next message.... it strikes me that in 1988 (yes, it's
>not 1958 anymore), we HAVE the technology to eliminate such useless
>junk mail, EVEN if uneducated (or forgetful) users keep sending it
>to TeX-L.  And the solution is simple, a four-year old could probably
>write it in a couple of hours: scan the body of any single-line message,
>and if it begins with a command appropriate for LISTSERV (e.g. SUBSCRIBE,
>UNSUBSCRIBE, etc.), simply re-direct it to LISTSERV instead of re-broadcasting
>it to the entire list.
>
>   David A. Kosower
>   [log in to unmask]
 
Please  note that  if  I had  implemented Mr  Kosower's  idea, this  very
mailfile would  not have been  distributed but forwarded to  LISTSERV for
execution, and I  would have been told that there  is no 'COMMANDS' list.
Not  to mention  the fact  that there  are commands  with a  much shorter
abbreviation or  with a very  common name (examples: 'FOR',  'GET', 'I').
Since 'I' stands for 'INFO', any  note starting with 'I' is a potentially
valid LISTSERV command file.
 
Obviously Mr  Kosower has analysed  the problem  with the intellect  of a
four-years old  boy. I  remember myself  telling my  parents "Why  do you
always complain  about not having  much money? Just  go to the  bank more
often to get more  banknotes" when I was 4. It  seemed pretty obvious and
logical to me.
 
  Eric