A cautionary tale on this subject... There is yet another reason to set REVIEW to "owner" beyond that of protecting subscribers from commercial spam, as I found to my cost two years ago. Naively, I had set REVIEW to "private," thinking that an adequate layer of protection against address-harvesters. Someone subscribed who soon gave indications that he was about to post a slanderous message about another listmember. As I learned later, this person had joined the list specifically in order to harrass and embarrass someone already on the list with whom he was involved in a longstanding dispute. Thanks to the warning, I was able to unsubscribe this e-stalker and filter his address before he was able to post the long attack he had prepared. Unfortunately, he had already retrieved the subscriber-list, and so after I removed him he proceeded to use it to send every single subscriber a copy of his multi-page, name-calling diatribe. (Those who complained to him received obscene threats in reply.) I was mortified, of course, and yet entirely helpless to prevent it. Like others here, I let subscribers know that I am glad to provide a fellow listmember's e-mail address upon request, and if a subscriber I know to be reliable gives a reason for wanting the whole list, I'll send a copy. But there are simply too many nuts out there, quite apart from the spammers, for it to be safe to let just anyone who subscribes retrieve hundreds or even thousands of e-mail addresses to use as he or she likes. Patrick Leary listowner, VICTORIA and SHARP-L [log in to unmask]