> I want to quote this message, because I think it probably
> reflects the majority of cases: "(2a) - list-owners who
> mistakenly believe that, because their list is public, and have
> not explicitly specified any restriction on their notebooks, that
> therefore their archives are public (instead of the default of
> private)."  I don't run a LISTSERV, so I may be wrong, but I
> _think_ that "notebooks={blank}" in the list header means that it
> is private, and that "notebooks=PUBLIC" must be explicitely
> written in there to make a notebook public.  Right?
 
Nope, you've got it reversed. Unless the list owner explicitly
codes access control, list archives are publically accesible.
 
> Someone asked about features for list owners.  The first version
> will focus on the needs of end-users.  We have plans for a list
> administrators version, with features for smart handling of
> bounces, etc, but have not started working it.  It probably makes
> more sense to wait until LISTSERV can talk directly to a client
> (a la archie, or ftp) so that we can put some real power into it.
> John Buckman
> [log in to unmask]
 
Suggestion: look at the OS/2 administrator client for ADSM for
some ideas on how to make a complex line-mode interface work well
with a GUI. The ADSM folks did an excellent job, and I'd like to
see the LISTSERV administrator client work as well.