I guess I'll never understand Anglo-Saxons :-) All right, so you want an option to be able to edit people's postings in their back while they naively think that nothing of the sort is happening. Then one day one of your victims will find out and let the world know, and boy will you be embarrassed. Then your list will spend a fortnight talking about censorship and similarly fascinating and on-topic issues. Switching to full moderation would incur the risk that people decide Big Brother took over and leave the list, so you won't do it. Instead you'll apologize until you're red in the face and swear never to do it again and could everyone please stop sending the hate mail (yes, and above all, could everyone please stop cc:ing *ME* on the hate mail because, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not the Anti-Christ pulling the ropes in the background). So, why don't I just save myself the time and not bother implementing it. If I wanted to use REVIEW for newcomers, I'd make it the default option and explain in the welcome message that all newcomers are set to REVIEW until they've posted X messages or for Y days, whichever takes longer, and every time they post rubbish that I have to filter, they start over with X and Y. Then if a newcomer seems sincere and clueful I'd reset the flag right away, and he'd be very happy. Even if he decided to go public about this favour, there wouldn't be any particular problem, assuming of course that what he posted WAS interesting and on topic. Technically these two systems accomplish exactly the same thing, operationally they are perfectly legitimate and consistent with the goal of keeping people on the list talking about what the list is about, but culturally one is called "segregation" whereas the other is "fair". The "fair" system is already implemented and doesn't involve the risk of a sudden flame fest on your list. I don't see any advantage to the segregatory system. Eric