On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:26:40 CDT, Paul Russell said: > On 10/22/2004 12:02 PM, Siegfried Schmitt wrote: > > A few months ago, one of our local list owners asked me to create a > > special super-list. He told me to create three lists (list1, list2, list3) > > with the following configuration: > > > > list1: > > sub-lists= list2,list3 > > > > list2: > > sub-lists= list1,list3 > > > > list3: > > sub-lists= list1,list2 > > > > You can see, that every list is both a sub-list and a super-list of the > > other two lists. I thought that this would create some kind of loop and I > > was really astonished to see that it worked (on a 1.8d LISTSERV). > > Given the fact that a message posted to any list will be distributed to > subscribers on all lists, I fail to see why there is a need for multiple > lists. Why not just use one list? I can easily see a case where for local political reasons, there is person A who is trusted to update the subscribers list for list1, but not trusted for list2 or list3, and similarly persons B and C who are only trusted to update their own sub-portion of the subscribers. What, you've never had to deal with rival departments who are worried that The Other Admin(*) is going to do a 'quiet del', post something important, and then do a 'quiet add', just to keep somebody in the dark? (*) Yes, yes, I know *very* well that 3 minutes with the Listserv logs will reveal the culprit - but remember that rationality and logic never apply in these political turf wars... ;)