>> # > >Of course, you can shut them down to some degree, but if you do so
>> # > >completely you'd actually lose very useful functionality.
>> # > 
>> # > um...how so?
>> # 
>> # As I said, it's an exercise for the reader.  However, I suspect that
>> # anybody with the clue to use 'who' can use this mechanism (it's just
>> # as easy).
>> 
>> Is there a way we can restrict the 'who' stuff to people who are actually
>> members of the list?
>
>I'm sure you _could_.  It's not clear to me that that's any more
>desirable than just turning it off.  ('who' is kinda lame, in my
>opinion; why should people get to know that, unless they're speaking
>differently depending on who they think is listening... and i'd much
>prefer people to not do that in any case.  Honesty is the best
>policy. 8-)

right.  we should all speak honestly and be forthright.  so...can we
have the 'who' thing turned off?  i don't care who knows i asked for
it, only that it's done.  or denied authoritatively.  :)

ps - do you have an actual working method in mind?  can you tell me
which lists i'm subscribed to, or are you saying this all
tongue-in-cheek?  :)

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."