You are of course right, Duane, but at the time the code was written, the
convention was 'VERSyymm'  (as compared to 'VERSyynn'  now). LISTSERV saw
that you  didn't have  VERS9001, and,  since we're not  past the  15th of
january,  would have  skipped the  warning if  you were  running what  it
thought to be  the december version, ie VERS8912. Since  you were not, it
stupidly warned you.  You might argue that I should  have coded >= rather
than ^=,  but this is irrelevant  since the whole routine  is defeated by
the  new convention,  which  makes it  possible for  VERS9009  to be  the
expected  version for  March 1990  (given enough  screw-ups which  I hope
we're not going to get!).
 
I'm  going  to rewrite  the  routine  completely  to  work with  the  new
convention. The fix will go in 1.6d, which I was preparing to ship when I
got numerous complaints about with VERS9001 business.
 
  Eric