Re: Lists v. Subscribe?

[Thomas Roessler]

On 2000-09-22 10:13:36 +0200, Jürgen Salk wrote:

>> The set of known lists (lists) is _always_ a subset of the set
>> of subscribed lists (subscribe).

> Are you perfectly sure? In my understanding, "lists" and
> "subscribe" does only make any sense, if addresses in "lists" are
> a superset of addresses in "subscribe". Or am I missing the
> point?

Not at all - I mistyped things.  So, to get this right: The set of
subscribed lists (subscribe) is always a subset of the set of known
lists (lists).

Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>