 
|
| Sender: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:22:15 HNE |
| In-Reply-To: |
Message of Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:58:15 +0100 from <ERIC@SEARN> |
| Reply-To: |
|
>
>Users sign up for digestified rather than immediate delivery with 'SET
>listname DIGests', which is an alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL. This
>command is rejected if digests are not available for the list, however if
>the option is accepted and the list owner subsequently turns digests off,
>it will be treated like NOMAIL.
May I suggest that, instead of rejecting SET listname DIGEST, it behaves
like SET listname MAIL, so that it becomes effective when/if the owner
decides to make it operational? Of course, this would imply a warning
message to the originator of the command.
Jean Bedard, C.T.I., Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada
Resp. VM/CMS, NetNorth, Listserv Bitnet: ADMIN AT LAVALVM1
(418) 656-3632 Internet: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|
