Re: [mlmmj] Any use case for subscribing to multiple versions

[Ben Schmidt <mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au>]

On 26/06/11 10:01 PM, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> Hi, everyone, and sorry for the LONG delays. A bunch of things have
> unfortunately got in the way of my Mlmmj work. I can't promise that I'll
> make good progress now, but I certainly hope to.
>
> So, following up some loose ends before I do a final implementation
> sprint and push out a beta or release candidate.
>
>>> I'm thinking of changing unsubscribe so it unsubscribes the user for
>>> any/all versions they are subscribed to, and subscribe so that if you
>>> are already subscribed to a different version, you 'switch' to the
>>> version you request the subscription for, ...
>
>>>>> Is there any use case for being subscribed to multiple versions of
>>>>> the same list? I can't think of a useful one.
>
>>>> I subscribe to both normal and digest versions of the lists I
>>>> manage. It's the easiest way to see if I'm having digest issues.
>>>> The cost is a daily hit of the delete key.
>
>>> I guess this is something only the list owner would ever want. How
>>> about we make this available only from the commandline (via a switch
>>> to mlmmj-sub), but make the standard behaviour that subs unsub you
>>> from other versions of the list?
>
>> +1
>
> OK. I am going to use this approach.
>
> I may implement the ability to do a subscribe-both via email, but this
> will not be documented in the default list texts. The default list texts
> will use the model described above.
>
> One question for mail experts and sysadmins out there: Should
> 'switching' (i.e. changing an existing subscription to a different
> version) require moderation or confirmation? I think not. Does anyone
> disagree?

And a third aspect: notification.

So, when a person switches from one version to another, should it
trigger:

- confirmation
- gatekeeping (subscription moderation)
- notification to the list owner

?

I think no to all three. Any disagreement?

Ben.