At 12:23 AM 11/14/98 -0500, Mark Hunnibell wrote: >Ben Parker said: > >> You must subscribe to [log in to unmask] before you can set >> yourself to NOACK NOMAIL there. > >and Rich Greenberg said: > >> I haven't tried this, but why don't you sub to the european list & set >> yourself to NOMAIL NOACK there. > >I guess my reaction is: Doesn't that pretty much negate the value to the >user in being involved on a list that is peered? There may be some >technical benefits for the site owners in running peered lists, but this >has to go down as one of the clumsiest "features" of LISTSERV from a user >perspective that I have ever encountered. I have to subscribe to a list >just so I can tell it not to mail me anything? Brilliant. Why can't the >list that knows far better than I do where its peers are do that for me >when I subscribe initially? It's even weirder. Half the time, the "right thing" to do is to override the Reply-To header because it points to the site you're not subscribed to. Until this was pointed out to me, I couldn't figure out why some of my posts were taking days to appear... they were being bounced to the moderator since I "wasn't subscribed" to the PEACH address, but I would be replying to the Reply-To header pointing there. The advantage of the peering is lost on me as well... when I signed up, the instructions gave the .SE address. So here I am in the United States, and most of the posts (I think) come from the U.S., but my subscription goes through Sweden. Maybe I'm missing something though. Cheers, Stan