> >What you say is generally true, but there are exceptions. One example > >is where the management of an organization wants to be able to send > >email to all employees. As long as you are employed there, you don't > >have the right to unsubscribe from such a list. > > > >Another case might be where you have agreed to be on a list as > >a condition of receiving some service. > > Even then, there might be good reasons (e.g., temporary software > maintenance) which might make an employee's unsubbing or setting oneself > to NOMAIL useful. I suppose one would want to block SET options then as > well? It's not like the owner can't tell if someone has unsubbed from > his/her list. Temporary software maintenance justifies unsubscribing or setting NOMAIL for a low-volume employee announcement list, but not stopping all other mail? I think you need a better example. Blocking SETs would make sense in our case because they will just be overridden when the bulk replacement of subscribers occurs. I happen to be the owner of our staff list. What do you suggest I do if someone unsubscribes? > I see a "Dilbert" here, somewhere :) > > -Dave Phillips I like Dilbert too. I'd say there's a lot more Dilbert potential in what might be posted to a staff announcement list than the existence of the list itself.