On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Dave Kinnaman wrote:
 
> LSTSRV-L Folks,
>
> I want to *allow* anonymous posts to my list Allergy at
>
> [log in to unmask]
 
  If you mean that you want to permit postings from the anonymous
e-mail server in finland (anon.penet.fi) which we have been
discussing, you might want to contact the administrator there who
goes by the name of 'Zarr' ([log in to unmask]).  They have a filter
on their system which explicitly prohibits mail from 'listserv'
to any of their anonymous 'clients'.  As was stated on this list,
mail from 'listserv' goes to the administrator, not the subscriber
who faked a subscription to your list.  Thus, any subscriber to your
list from that site, 1. Had to subvert the system to sub to your list
and, 2. Will never see mail distributed from your list.
 
> If I use the Filter = Also  where I already have postmasters etc, will
> that prevent
>
> SUBSCRIPTIONS or
>
> POSTS or
>
> both?
 
  First, I don't know where listserv gets the information from in the
'Also' when supplying in the list header a "* Filter= Also,..."  I suspect
that it is internal and is distributed with the code provided by Lsoft.
 
  As for the option discussed here, 'FILTER_ALSO', this is input
provided by the postmaster and unless code has been built in to read
this information, then it shouldn't apply.  However, the header
option of '* Filter= Also," and the configuation option of 'FILTER_ALSO'
may very well be integrated, and if this is the case, then it would
apply and suggest a terribly efficient way of handling them.  At any
rate, someone more knowledgeable than I could answer such an interesting
question.
 
  Just as a point of interest.  When the 'FILTER_ALSO' option was first
advertized, I was initailly elated because this meant that I didn't have
to send mail to all the listowners saying "you might want to filter this
address out'...and it took some pressure off them with regard to time
constraints....this is something they appreciate at times. :-)
However, I felt a bit of a twinge of concern for listowners after
I thought about it after reading a post from someone (sorry I can't
recall who it was....but I recall the words to the effect of "Just
food for thought"...and I usually remember the content of those posts)
who suggested or implied that the FILTER_ALSO option might in some way
have a negative impact on the control a listowner has over their list...
and who can sub/post and who can't.  While this 'anon.penet.fi' business
is a good example for the use of FILTER_ALSO, I can see instances
where it might be used in such a way as to inhibit control over a list
that might infringe on a listowner's rights of control over his or her
list.  Granted this might speak to the broader issues of 'ethics' and
integrity' and certainly there are commands that have long existed
that could be used in such a manner, much to a listowner's dismay....
and thus perhaps this is just another one of them that requires more
thought and justification similar to what one might give before
issuing a 'serve userid@host off" command.  But since I'm rather new
to being a LISTSERV maintainer, I'm probably just being a tad sensitive
on this issue. Just being a simple postmaster doesn't require such
sensitivity or thought. :-)
 
Enough said...  --Trish
 
 
> Please, I'm also interested in the same question from a SYSVARS point of
> view (assuming TAMU has that kind of capability).  8=]'
>
> Thanks!
>
>  Pax,  Dave                                        Information wants
> Dave Kinnaman  <[log in to unmask]>  512/463-9321     to be Free!
>