On 11/19/2004 7:29 AM, Eric Thomas wrote:

> It doesn't work that way. Think of it as a #include. Whatever is in the
 > file gets processed at the point where the .IK occurs. So, this is not
 > a good feature to specify a default value for popular keywords, but it is
 > a good feature to specify a set of list owners for a group of lists,
 > or a series of common keywords for a large group of related lists (for
 > instance class lists).

We address the issue of common owners for a group of lists by creating a
'group-owners' list. This provides the same benefit as the use of a .IK
file - only one file must be updated to add or delete an owner, but it
makes it possible to delegate that responsibility to a list owner, rather
than requiring that all changes be made by the system administrator. It
also provides a vehicle for communicating with all of the owners in the
group. We do the same thing when we have common editors for a group of
related lists.

I understand the underlying concept of the .IK directive, and I can see
the value of using a .IK file to define a common set of list configuration
options for a group of related lists, however, I would still like to know
what happens when the owner of one of those lists explicitly adds one of
those keywords to the list header, and the setting conflicts with the
setting in the .IK file. Will LISTSERV issue an error when the list owner
attempts to PUT the list, or will it use some logical rule to determine
which setting to use?

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
OIT Messaging Services Team
University of Notre Dame