Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com> writes:
> On 9 Sep 2000, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> # Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:
> # > >even if 'who' was completely disabled, there are other ways to get all
> # > >or most e-mail addresses subscribed to the lists.
> # > 
> # > granted, but it will keep the casually perusing spamfarmer out.
> # > 
> # > >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-)

That doesn't help the other case(s) though.



cgd