If they are not allowed to have access to the information, why is there a
concern that they have review commands available to them.  At least this
way they could have the lists that they needed and it stays within policy
demands without having to go through the trouble of super lists.

kevin....






At 04:57 PM 10/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, KEVIN MCKENZIE wrote:
>
>> How about setting the instructor to being a member of the list instead of a
>> owner of a list.  Then set the review rights to only the postmaster or
>> postman of the system.  This should keep the instructors from being able to
>> do a review or get on the system.  If the instructors only want to send to
>> the list and not receive dailly information set them as a sender.  I think
>
>   Doing that would have the same effect as what we initially proposed
>(making the faculty member the owner of the super-list but not the
>sub-list), and they were quite angry with not being able to do a REVIEW at
>all.  It was at this point when I was asked to find an alternative.
>The only alternative I can come up with is writing something that will
>create two add jobs (for user-list and sub-list) that would give faculty
>member *some* access.  It just seems a lot of work. :-)
>
>   I have argued that policy must drive technology, not the other way
>around, so at least the policy will be reviewed, but I don't expect
>much change other than being told to come up with a tech solution
>consistent with the new policy.
>
>   Anyway, thanks again.
>
>--trish
>
>