> >Users sign up for digestified rather than immediate delivery with 'SET >listname DIGests', which is an alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL. This >command is rejected if digests are not available for the list, however if >the option is accepted and the list owner subsequently turns digests off, >it will be treated like NOMAIL. May I suggest that, instead of rejecting SET listname DIGEST, it behaves like SET listname MAIL, so that it becomes effective when/if the owner decides to make it operational? Of course, this would imply a warning message to the originator of the command. Jean Bedard, C.T.I., Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada Resp. VM/CMS, NetNorth, Listserv Bitnet: ADMIN AT LAVALVM1 (418) 656-3632 Internet: [log in to unmask]