Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 28 May 2001 00:21:08 -0400 |
Comments: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> I should have said served OUT instead of served OFF. Thanks for
> the correction. (Prepositions are challenging enough in my native
> English, in which alarms go off bv going on and we fill out forms to
> fill them in! Computer-speak I consider a foreign tongue, which I am
> learning haltingly.)
Served out and served off mean the same thing. LISTSERV accepts both.
> This was the situation which prompted my question: A subscriber on
> one of my lists was unable to post to the list,LISTSERV notified me
> that he had been served out, I corrected that with the serve
> command, and he verified his restoration with a (discreet but
> visible) test message.
>
> Some one very kindly wrote me privately that a subscriber might be
> able to test invisibly wih QUERY. Unfortunately, I did not think to
> look at the subscriber's options before sending the corrective
> command, so I can only guess. But I am a little hesitant, because,
> while being served out might kick in NOPOST in Classic, NOPOST is not
> available in LITE. I would think an invisible test of being served
> in would work the same way in both listserv versions.
Any command to LISTSERV will do. If you get a response, you are not
served out. NOPOST is not forced by SERVE OUT, but someone who is
served out cannot post because their messages are diverted to the
list owner.
|
|
|