Hmmm... I read the whole (long) posting.  Suppose there was an option
on SUBscribe or SET to control whether the subscriber's name was shown
on REView?  If it's set to NOREVIEW (or PRIVATE or whatever), then
REView would show reviewable names and "plus nnn PRIVATE subscribers".
Could implementation of this suggestion maybe satisfy everyone?  (The
default would have to be installation definable; I'm sure that
DB0TUI11 would set it to PRIVATE.)
 
Personally, I seldom care about reviewing subscriber names.  I'm
usually interested only in the header, and I'm too lazy to look up the
option to request the list header only.  So what *I* find annoying is
not the fact that I can't review the list of subscriber names, but
rather the message to that effect that I get from some servers!  How
about changing the REView default to "header only"?
 
I agree that it's better to >ask< someone if they're subscribed to a
particular list.  As postmaster of this system, I have a few listserv
lists subscribed to local bulletin boards, so that any number of
people can read them without having to fill up their personal "in"
boxes.  So I read some lists without showing up in the list of
subscribers.  In REViewing many lists, this seems to be common.  So,
yes, I echo the question:  Can some of the people who feel this is so
important explain why it's important?
 
 
BTW, I run UCLA/Mail on this MVS system, and have some small, private
lists.  There is *no possible way* (short of looking at the startup
parms) to determine who's on those lists.  This is a side effect of a
design problem->fix, but I now see no reason to change it.
 
 
As an aside, in the U.S., lots of people give lip service to privacy.
But when it comes right down to it, (in my opinion) privacy laws are
largely ignored.  For example, social security numbers were not
supposed to be used for *anything* not directly related to accounting
for social security.  Now, virtually every form you fill out (credit
application, job application, driver's license) wants social security
number.  Why?  Because it makes it easy for companies and for
government agencies to exchange information on people.  This is
clearly against the spirit of the law.
 
 
Information on individuals should not be collected for the sake of
having it.  Only information that is actually required to perform the
stated job should be collected, and it should be used only for the
purpose stated when it was collected.  LISTSERV's stated job is to
deliver mail to interested subscribers, not to make that information
available to anyone.  (I think that I may have crossed over the line
into something that should be discussed on ETHICS-L.  But due to the
volume of mail on that list, I seldom read it.  It's the one that
prompted me to write the bulletin board support!)
 
 
/Leonard