"members only"...most of my other lists are set up so that anyone can read
messages (and archived messages, too), but in order for someone to post to
the list, they have to "subscribe" to the list. By 'subscribe' I don't mean
that the moderator has to approve membership (though that is possible, too,
I don't think it necessary here) -- it's an instant kind of thing. Then
there is virtually no difference in the list than how it is now, except that
if someone does start flooding the list with spam, the moderator can remove
them.
If there was someone who *really* didn't want to register with Yahoogroups
(which I believe you must do anyway to read the messages currently, no?) and
wanted to post clues, I'm sure that some kind soul would step up and would
post that clue to the list for them. It could easily be another email
address on the website if necessary.
Just my .02,
Ann in MA
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:37 AM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Members only list -- con :o)
> Count me as a "con" as well. I don't care for the exclusivity
> of "members only" lists on yahoo. There's a cool bay area
> (california) hiking list that I wanted to browse, but it is members
> only and that was enough to turn me off.
>
> All of the other less-handy, old-fashioned lists I also subscribe to
> are email only and members only, and frankly, they're cumbersome. I
> enjoy the interaction but wish I had more options on how I'm
> bombarded. Although I hate the advertising, the yahoo group format is
> pretty flexible: people can set it up however they want.
>
> Jay in CT (think I'll go to Texas to cool off!)
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>