At 3:27 PM -0400 10/16/00, Pete Weiss wrote: >>Wouldn't setting everyone to NOPOST do the same thing? (And yes, you >>would definitely have to tell everyone or they would freak!) Of >>course, if you have some people set to nopost for some reason, you >>would need to get a list of them so you could set them back after you >>sent in the "SET LISTNAME POST FOR *@*" command. Is there a reason >>why "Send= Editor,Hold,Confirm" would be better? > >Issuing list-wide SETs is resource intensive. You also need to update >the list definition anyways so that NEW subscribers default to NOPOST. Oh, right. But maybe for a small list, it might be the easier avenue. For a list of a thousand or more, maybe not so wise because of the drain on the server. >Then when you return, you have to remember to undo all of that (assuming >of course there aren't some subscribers who you want in NOPOST status). I don't have people on NOPOST on my lists for very long. If they belong there more than a day or two, they are kicked off of the list. However, that IS a consideration. I hadn't remembered the new subscribers though, so I would have fouled things up myself. >Finally, NOPOST causes the email to be rejected, as opposed to being >forwarded to the OWNER for later disposition. Which would be a good thing in this scenario...assuming everyone has been informed that the list is being stopped temporarily, of course. >Regardless, there are pros and cons for each scenario and YMMV. Or, as the saying goes, "Nothing is simple." Mary