I have added a new pair of options to the 'SET listname XXXX' command: CONCEAL/NOCONCEAL. The default is NOCONCEAL, and means that your subscription to the specified list is not to be considered confidential. That is, users can see that you are on the list by means of the REVIEW command (as they have always been able to do up to now). "Green gemstone men" can use the 'SET listname CONCEAL' command to prevent this from happening. Their entries will simply not appear on the output of a REVIEW command, although the total number of concealed users will be displayed in the statistics at the bottom. The GET command still shows everybody. If it didn't, you'd be effectively removed from the list when it is stored back. When you subscribe to a list, you are now told that users will be able to determine that you are on it, and that they will even see your name, not just your network address. You are instructed to issue a 'SET listname CONCEAL' command if you do not like it. This blurb is automatically removed if the list is set to "Review= Owner" or "Review= Postmaster". When mail is set without "Mail-via= Distribute", a separate mailfile is sent to each of the concealed users, so that other people cannot see them in the 'To:' field. This may result in an increase in network load, and will definitely results in an increase of CPU time consumption by LISTSERV as several tests and parsing instructions had to be inserted where there was originally none. Of course, nothing prevents your average VMS mailer to send a piece of mail back to the message sender with one of the confidential addresses into it, and a multiline rambling message that will make you start philosophizing about the unavoidability of operating systems with acronym names sharing a common heritage, and the influence of alien life forms on today's major operating systems. Since there is nothing I can do about that, I did not try to do anything about it. And, of course, it took me more time to type this note than to write the corresponding code. And it probably took Thomas 5 times as much time to write his original plea, not to mention the subsequent replies. I just hope we will now consider the subject closed and will get back to real productive work. I also hope that this last (well now it's the next-to-last :-) ) sentence will not start a religious debate - hundreds of reasonable persons have tried to make me a bit more tolerant and broad-minded, but they have always failed miserably, so I don't think you stand any good chance at all :-) Eric