SIGNOFF commands have always been a problem with uneducated users. Sigh /Eric +------------------------------------------------+ | Eric Thomas <ERIC@FRECP11> | | World's best expert on super-duper signatures | | Director of the Audit Division's Flaming Group | | (blah blah) | | Ecole Centrale de Paris, France | +------------------------------------------------+ ......................................................................... > Good grief. And when I am through clearing the chad off my machine, >I can dump the next message.... it strikes me that in 1988 (yes, it's >not 1958 anymore), we HAVE the technology to eliminate such useless >junk mail, EVEN if uneducated (or forgetful) users keep sending it >to TeX-L. And the solution is simple, a four-year old could probably >write it in a couple of hours: scan the body of any single-line message, >and if it begins with a command appropriate for LISTSERV (e.g. SUBSCRIBE, >UNSUBSCRIBE, etc.), simply re-direct it to LISTSERV instead of re-broadcasting >it to the entire list. > > David A. Kosower > [log in to unmask] Please note that if I had implemented Mr Kosower's idea, this very mailfile would not have been distributed but forwarded to LISTSERV for execution, and I would have been told that there is no 'COMMANDS' list. Not to mention the fact that there are commands with a much shorter abbreviation or with a very common name (examples: 'FOR', 'GET', 'I'). Since 'I' stands for 'INFO', any note starting with 'I' is a potentially valid LISTSERV command file. Obviously Mr Kosower has analysed the problem with the intellect of a four-years old boy. I remember myself telling my parents "Why do you always complain about not having much money? Just go to the bank more often to get more banknotes" when I was 4. It seemed pretty obvious and logical to me. Eric