> I want to quote this message, because I think it probably > reflects the majority of cases: "(2a) - list-owners who > mistakenly believe that, because their list is public, and have > not explicitly specified any restriction on their notebooks, that > therefore their archives are public (instead of the default of > private)." I don't run a LISTSERV, so I may be wrong, but I > _think_ that "notebooks={blank}" in the list header means that it > is private, and that "notebooks=PUBLIC" must be explicitely > written in there to make a notebook public. Right? Nope, you've got it reversed. Unless the list owner explicitly codes access control, list archives are publically accesible. > Someone asked about features for list owners. The first version > will focus on the needs of end-users. We have plans for a list > administrators version, with features for smart handling of > bounces, etc, but have not started working it. It probably makes > more sense to wait until LISTSERV can talk directly to a client > (a la archie, or ftp) so that we can put some real power into it. > John Buckman > [log in to unmask] Suggestion: look at the OS/2 administrator client for ADSM for some ideas on how to make a complex line-mode interface work well with a GUI. The ADSM folks did an excellent job, and I'd like to see the LISTSERV administrator client work as well.