Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:11:49 +0100
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Bob Kline wrote:
> Usually this is true for a mailing list. However, LATEX-L is the only
> list I have seen which has a web interface for joining the list and
> gaining access to the archives that confirms that your registration
> as successful, but then denies access to the archives and the posting
> interface. None of the automated messages sent by the interface
> identify the address of the list administrator. I even tried writing
> to [log in to unmask], and while the message was
> delivered successfully I never received a reply. So after several
> days I gave up and posted a message directly to the list. It was only
> after I got the rejection bounce of my posting that I finally had an
> address for the list administrator.
Unfortunately, what you get is the address for the list owner, not the
administrator. I won't bother you with listserv administrivia; we list
owners are only lowly persons who are allowed to control the list policy
or membership. Controlling the interface is the realm of the listserv
administrator. [log in to unmask] seems to me the right
address to complain.
I'm also annoyed with the way the listserv is managed, and have already
moved one of my lists (CTAN-ANN) to another server. However, moving an
open list such as LATEX-L would give rise to so much confusion that I did
not propose it yet.
> I would strongly urge that
> 1. the web interface for registration be fixed; and
> 2. the headers for all automated messages include the administrator's
> email address.
Actually, when I tried the web interface to access the archives just a few
minutes ago, it worked fine.
As for the automated messages, these are standard messages provided by
the listserv software.
> I wonder how large the subscriber list for LATEX-L would be if the
> interface for joining the list weren't broken.
I doubt that it makes a difference. The advertised interface for joining
is via mail, and that worked. The web interface is a very recent addition.
Of course, the configuration errors should be fixed, but I don't think it
influences the membership.