I  have added  a new  pair  of options  to  the 'SET  listname XXXX'  command:
CONCEAL/NOCONCEAL. The default is NOCONCEAL,  and means that your subscription
to the specified list is not to be considered confidential. That is, users can
see that  you are on  the list by  means of the  REVIEW command (as  they have
always been able to do up to now).
 
"Green gemstone  men" can use  the 'SET  listname CONCEAL' command  to prevent
this from happening. Their  entries will simply not appear on  the output of a
REVIEW command, although the total number of concealed users will be displayed
in the statistics at the bottom. The  GET command still shows everybody. If it
didn't, you'd be effectively removed from the list when it is stored back.
 
When you  subscribe to a  list, you are  now told that  users will be  able to
determine that you are on it, and that  they will even see your name, not just
your network  address. You are  instructed to  issue a 'SET  listname CONCEAL'
command if you do not like it. This blurb is automatically removed if the list
is set to "Review= Owner" or "Review= Postmaster".
 
When mail is  set without "Mail-via= Distribute", a separate  mailfile is sent
to each of  the concealed users, so  that other people cannot see  them in the
'To:'  field.  This may  result  in  an increase  in  network  load, and  will
definitely  results in  an increase  of CPU  time consumption  by LISTSERV  as
several tests  and parsing  instructions had  to be  inserted where  there was
originally none. Of course, nothing prevents your average VMS mailer to send a
piece  of  mail back  to  the  message sender  with  one  of the  confidential
addresses into it,  and a multiline rambling message that  will make you start
philosophizing  about the  unavoidability  of operating  systems with  acronym
names sharing  a common  heritage, and  the influence of  alien life  forms on
today's major operating systems. Since there is nothing I can do about that, I
did not try to do anything about it.
 
And, of  course, it  took me more  time to  type this note  than to  write the
corresponding code. And it probably took Thomas  5 times as much time to write
his original plea, not to mention the  subsequent replies. I just hope we will
now consider the subject  closed and will get back to  real productive work. I
also hope that this  last (well now it's the next-to-last  :-) ) sentence will
not start  a religious debate -  hundreds of reasonable persons  have tried to
make me  a bit  more tolerant  and broad-minded, but  they have  always failed
miserably, so I don't think you stand any good chance at all :-)
 
  Eric