On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:22:15 HNE Jean Bedard <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>>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?
 
The only  difference is in  the very rare case  where a list  owner first
enables digests,  and then decides to  disable them after all.  In such a
case, I  would expect the owner  to warn the users  abundantly and/or fix
their subscriptions. Furthermore I wanted  to avoid complaints from users
with the  following scenario: Joe  is subscribed to  a bunch of  lists in
their digested form, and goes on vacations for 2 weeks. Before going away
he sets NOMAIL on all lists. When he comes back he finds out that:
 
1. He did  not get partial digests  for the period of time  before he set
   NOMAIL. Joe  thinks he should have  got the messages posted  before he
   sent the SET NOMAIL.
 
2. After sending  a SET MAIL command, he got  long digests which included
   messages posted while he had SET NOMAIL!
 
A  set of  2 options  would  make it  legitimate  for Joe  to think  that
MAIL/NOMAIL controls which messages are shown to him, and DIGEST/NODIGEST
controls  how  they are  sent.  With  a  single  option, digests  are  an
alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL - a  means of getting the messages to you,
and not a means of deciding which messages to show. Joe issues SET NOMAIL
before going on  vacations, and SET DIGESTS (not SET  MAIL) when he comes
back.  At this  point  he  starts getting  the  digests  again, which  is
logical.
 
  Eric