In an attempt to close this endless thread, I would like to point out that it IS possible to disable SIGNOFF and SET using a list exit. However, this is a comparatively complex procedure that involves the list maintainer, and I think it should remain this way. If every list owner could disable SET or SIGNOFF with a simple keyword, I think many would be doing it in circumstances where it would be considered abusive by most people. Now, running a list where SIGNOFF is disabled is likely to be illegal in many countries (although probably not in the US). It would be ok for a staff list or the like, hopefully you have an employment contract that says somewhere that the employee agrees to follow company regulations and keep informed of changes in company policy or regulations. Besides, you define their job, and if you say their job includes reading the staff list, it is clearly a breach of contract for them to refuse to read it. But "People who want to sign off should just ask me" doesn't cut it, even if the cause is legitimate ("I just want to know why people are leaving, that's all!") As a rule, the organization that provides the service tends to be the one that gets sued, both because the concept of "list ownership" is still foreign to the courts, and because organizations generally have more money than individuals. The burden is then on the site hosting the service to prove that the list owner was responsible for causing the problem, that the service provider was not notified, and that the service provider was not negligent. From the plaintiff's perspective, moving the lawsuit to the list owner is more or less equivalent to losing it as there will not be any serious money to be grabbed, so one can expect some serious resistance to the claims. This is simply not a comfortable situation to be in, and I don't think list owners should be able to make this change on their own. Eric