> > > effect for each sub-list is not the same.  If Listserv *were* to honor
> > > sub-list subscriber settings when mail is sent to a superlist, which
> > > sub-list would Listserv get them from?
>
> I'm still trying to fit your suggestion into a setup with our class
> mailing lists, knowing full well that this setup might be unique (I hope
> I'm not wasting you or anyone elses time).  You suggest:
>
> > (1)  Take them from the first sublist that the subscriber appears on.
> > (2)  Take them from the last sublist that the subscriber appears on.
>
> Would you agree that the only purpose of Listserv doing (1) or (2) would
> be to provide the subscriber with some control over how mail from a
> particular superlist is distributed to them?  In order for either to work,
> the subscriber would have to *know* on which sub-list they appear first or
> last (which could be different depending on who is sending the mail to
> which superlist). I'm having this nightmare of only getting hundreds of
> students wanting to know, out of the possible thousands who could ask,
> each Term.  Am I misunderstanding your suggestion?.  As it stands now,
> they do know on which sub-lists they are on and can set their options
> for each.

Yes, the reason would be to give subscribers (and list owners) some control
over the settings that they do not have now.  Yes, in this case the subscriber
would need extra knowledge when changing their settings.

Perhaps I am making an unwarranted assumption here, but I think the most
common case is that the superlist and all sublists are controlled by the
ssame owners and have the same default settings for subscribers.  I'm also
assuming that the vast majority of subscribers do not change their settings.

> > (3)  Ignore the subscriber options but apply the Default-options from
> > the superlist.
>
> Would you agree that this suggestion removes control of the distribution
> options from subscribes of all sub-lists (as in (1) and (2) above) and
> puts it in the hands of *only* the List Owners of any given superlist?
> To some extent, this is how it is now when sending mail to a superlist
> with the exception that only the Default-options that apply to
> non-subscribers are passed on. I think I found all of them (assume their
> alternate): REVIEW, NOPOST, and ACK

Right now there is no control, since LISTSERV ignores the subscriber
options on the sublists and most of the Default-options of the
superlist.  I would like to have some control.  The value of superlists
over simply subscribing the sublists to the superlist is to eliminate
duplicates.  Right now you give up a lot for that.

> My problem is that I'm still of the old thought that subscribers should be
> able to control distribution options that are NOT the list management ones
> of REVIEW and NOPOST.  It bothers me less that these are passed on because
> they are options that subscribers should not control anyway.  I would be
> troubled I suppose if REPRO (and some other default-options) could be
> imposed on subscribers of sub-lists by superlist Owners without any means
> of how to turn it off.

Why is that whose than not being able to get those options when you want
them?

> It doesn't help that from:
> http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8d/owner/appendb.html#keyDefaultOptions
>
> We read:
>
> "Starting with LISTSERV 1.8d, all default options are applied to
> non-subscribers, so it is possible to force even non-subscribers...."
>
> > The current situation, in which there is no control over subscriber
> > options, seems the least ddesirable.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I see the subscriber as having control over ALL
> options on lists that they are on (mail to and from their sub-lists) and I
> see List Owners having control over some management options via
> default-options (REVIEW, POST) on a superlist.  I guess it never really
> bothered me too much that non-subscribes could not set/change
> distributions options on lists to which they were not explicitly
> subscribed (superlists).
>
> There is likely the source of confusion as some would argue that sub-list
> only subscribers are not subscribers of the superlist while others would
> argue perhaps that they are indeed subscribers so long as they are
> receipients of the mail sent to it.  Thus, I would be in favour of finding
> a way to provide the subscriber with control over their options rather
> than letting List Owners impose those options via passing on all
> Default-options on a superlist; options that the subscriber cannot change
> or turn off. Sorry for the rambling.
>
> --Trish

That's what I am asking for -- more control.