On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Peter Rauch wrote: > I suppose that one could identify other keywords (than the focus of > this thread --FILTER) which some list owners would like to keep > private, while other keywords would be ok to share. This would lead to > a situation where every conceivable combination of keywords might need > to be divided into the "private" and "public" piles. I think there are very few features of the header that are as sensitive as the list of filtered addresses, nor as needless for the general public. > How about just using the tools that are available now? Specifically, > make the LIST file unreadable/unreviewable by all but the owner (that's > possible, right??), and let the list owner take the responsibility to > document those keywords which she is willing to share with the > subscribers in a separate file. That separate file could be > the INFO template (of the mailtpl file), or the WELCOME file, or even a > separate file, e.g., <listname>.pubkw (public keywords), installed via > the SITE.CATALOG or FILELIST mechanisms. My list already HAS Review=Owner, but that doesn't stop people from sending the command REVIEW [listname] SHORT and getting all the settings, including the list of addresses I've filtered. I already HAVE a welcome letter--that goes to subscribers and would be totally inappropriate for anyone else. > That way, each owner gets to configure the sharing/concealing of > keyword information exactly as she wishes. It works today --no waiting > in line for new LISTSERV features. Normally, I'd agree with you. I usually favor maximum flexibility, so that each person can tailor things to meet her needs. However, I have never seen any useful purpose served by having the Filter info out where everyone can see it. Also, while I have my list set to Review=Owner, I can easily imagine many listowners not wanting to take so drastic a step. That does, after all, create considerable inconvenience for subscribers (and thus for the listowner who has to handle all their requests), and I strongly doubt that there's a justification for displaying the Filtered addresses that outweighs the inconvenience created by barring subscribers from using the REVIEW command. Joan Korenman ***************************************************************************** * Joan Korenman [log in to unmask] * * U. of Md. Baltimore County * * Baltimore, MD 21228-5398 http://www-unix.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ * * * * The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe * *****************************************************************************