Dear Al and LSTSRV-L Folks, Maybe you didn't know that what you're doing is a little out of the ordinary? I think most of this thread would have been obviated if you had told us originally that you are doing this: >And the problem is that the signups for this list >are handled elsewhere, and then the email >addresses are imported into the list. In other >words, Listserv lets me put him in, but it >doesn't let him unsubscribe himself. > >So, yeah, the listserv is *mine*, but it allows >import of addresses that it won't allow to >unsubscribe. You've gone around the built-in, tried and tested LISTSERV design, used by most others, to get new members onto the list. This front end, when originally designed, took on the responsibility that it may become a way of generating more work for yourself - work that most other list owners let the superb LISTSERV software perform. It is your choice, as it were, even if designed in ignorance of LISTSERVs technical intricacies. Does your front end do a confirmation step, to be sure LISTSERV can communicate with the new account e-mail address? [probably not] So now we see that what you really want, maybe, is a little warning flag to come up and say, "Are you sure you want to ADD [log in to unmask] Idiot Admin? To prevent mail loops, the subscriber with this account will be unable to communicate with LISTSERV. You will be required to handle all account changes *for* this account. Are you sure you want to create this disabled account?" >That makes the problem mine Actually, I think the problem may be bigger than you, depending on if you have control of the "elsewhere" where "sign ups for this list are handled." In effect, and until now in ignorance, you're violating one of the (seldom articulated) fundamental ethical principles of the Internet. And until now you were using LISTSERV's self-preservation defense against mail loops to disempower a user (unknown to yourself, it seems). Principle Each user (subscriber, member, mailbox owner) should control their own information environment. We each are the best qualified to say what we want to see, and what we don't want to see, in our INBOX. Anytime anyone else decides what should be in our INBOX, a possible violation of this principle has occurred. {SPAM is a prime example.} LISTSERV is designed with this principle firmly in mind. The user can control instantly, whether they get individual messages, DIGEST, INDEX, NOMAIL - you get the picture. Because LISTSERV goes out of its way to comply instantly with user wishes, I can't find fault with LISTSERV on this principle. Clash Of Principles? On the other hand, LISTSERV must provide for its own survival. This, I could argue, is a less fundamental issue than ownership control of each information environment. There are certainly more users with an INBOX than there are LISTSERV members. And Yet LISTSERV disables a very small number of the infinite available e-mail addresses, and only to perform a near-mandatory protective function. On Balance I see this as an entirely acceptable balance between the principles involved. Only idiot administrators and ignorant list owners are inconvenienced. Almost everybody has utter and immediate control of their own accounts. I guess I'm okay with this state of affairs. If L-Soft, in due time, chooses to create an "Are you sure?" warning for people who, after they deliberately remove the safety, are about to shoot themselves squarely in the foot, I can live with that, too. <shrug> Your mileage, of course, may vary. Pax, Ballew Kinnaman <[log in to unmask]> 206/463-2322 Discussion list owner: Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/allergy/index.html Arthritis ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/arthritis/index.html PCHealth ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/pchealth/index.html Latex Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/rubber/index.html Thyroid ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/thyroid/index.html