Katim, thanks for the suggestion. I checked Maelstrom web page for both the Conduit and Info email addresses for Mr. Harwell. As President Brewoo indicated relative to the AAM List, none of the functions that would prevent these addresses from posting to LUChA are activated (see attached copy of the web page report). Thus, Mr. Harwell is receiving these messages and should be able to post to the List.
I fully agree with President Brewoo's suggestion that the best way confirm if there is a problem is for Mr. Harwell to send an email to AAM with a copy to President Brewoo. I strongly encourage Mr. Harwell to do so as soon as possible so this issue can be finally put to rest.
Respectfully,
Peter Munoz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account management * LUCHA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View or set subscription options
[log in to unmask]
Notification options: Notify the user by e-mail
Name: Nathaniel Harwell
Address: [log in to unmask]
Subscribed on 31 Jul 2001
Subscription type: Regular [NODIGEST]
Mail header style: LISTSERV-style, short [SHORTHDR]
Acknowledgements: Receive copy of own postings [NOACK REPRO]
Miscellaneous: (None of the following functions are activated)
Mail delivery disabled temporarily [NOMAIL]
Address concealed from REVIEW listing [CONCEAL]
User is exempt from renewal/probing [NORENEW]
User may bypass moderation [EDITOR]
All postings sent to list owner for review [REVIEW]
User may not post to list [NOPOST]
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/04/02 10:03PM >>>
Dear all,
Contrary to what Joe Brewoo said in his last e-mail, the Conduit thing is dragging on. For good reason, because there still are some murky issues here. But before I detail my suggestions about how we can solve this once and for all, I would like to plead with all of you to refrain from making any allegations against Mr. Harwell until at such a time when he can post messages on the list. It is not fair to have all manner of characterizations of him knowing full well that he cannot at this point reply in his own defense.
With regard resolving the issue that won't go away, I'd like to say "Thanks" to Joe and Peter Munoz for forwarding the results of their query about Mr. Harwell's subscription. However, I believe the information they forwarded is incomplete. Here's a snippet from what Joe sent to the list:
> q aam for *condui*@*
> Subscription options for Nathaniel Harwell <[log in to unmask]>, list AAM:
> MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received
> FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers
> REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings
> NOACK No acknowledgement of successfully processed postings
> Subscription date: 17 Jan 1998
> One matching entry found.
> q aam for *info*@*
> Subscription options for Nathaniel Harwell <[log in to unmask]>, list AAM:
> MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received
> FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers
> REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings
> NOACK No acknowledgement of successfully processed postings
Please note that none of the above query results specifically say that either one or both of Mr. Harwell's addresses CAN post to the AAM list. Even though the REPRO and NOACK settings imply that the person has posting privileges, I don't think they are sufficient to determine whether or not a subscriber has been barred from sending postings to the list. The best way to determine the full status of Mr. Harwell's subscription is to use the Web-based list management interface available via the St.
Johns Univ. Maelstrom site: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/
Click on the "Owners list management screen", and you'll then be prompted for your e-mail address and password. If you don't have a password, you can create one, and confirm it, using instructions that will be e-mailed you. After that, it is a simple matter going to the list management page, and querying an e-mail address from the list of subscribers. You'll get a FULL listing of the subscribers subscription status, organized under the headings "Subscription type", "Mail header style", "Acknowledgements", and "Miscellaneous."
Of particular interest in Mr. Harwell's case would be the last option under
"Miscellaneous", i.e. the one that says "User may not post to list." If this box is
not checked, then (and only then) can we say that Mr. Harwell has no case. If it is checked, then it should be unchecked {if that is, the list managers(s) really want to restore his posting privileges}. And please don't forget to press the "Update" button right below the "User may not post to list" check box if you want your changes to take effect.
I suggest that a list manager carry out the above exercise and tell us whether or not the "User may post to list" boxes were checked for each of Mr. Harwell's addresses. And if either or both of them had the box checked, we need to know who did so, and why. Finally, we need to know when Mr. Harwell's posting privileges have been restored, if they indeed were revoked. As many people have pointed out here, I'd like to say that I insist that we get to the bottom of this because it would be the just thing to do. So let's get this over with as soon as possible, and move on.
Thanks again for your indulgence, and best wishes.
Katim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html
AAM Website: http://www.danenet.wicip.org/aam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
