>
>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]