>While we're at it: I think you mentioned this somewhere and couldn't locate
>where: I get these from the JES2-L servers. LIST-ID is not specified in any
>of the peers, and the names in all of them is JES-L. Why inconsistency then?
>Version incompatability? /Doron
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Warning: a possible inconsistency in the network-wide "List-ID" of list
>JES2-L has been detected. Please ensure that it does correspond to the peered
>chain: JES2-L@VTVM2 JES2-L@CEARN JES2-L@NDSUVM1 [log in to unmask]
Since I'm probably going to get the same question several times, I'm sending
the reply to the list :-)
The first thing to understand is that the "List-ID" always exists, and
defaults to the list name. So even if you don't have a "List-ID=" keyword, you
do have a list-id.
There may exist any number of non-peered lists with the same list-id on the
network, plus possibly a UNIQUE peered chain. That is, you can have 2 local
non-peered JES2-L lists, and zero or one peer chain with a list-id of JES2-L.
Thus JES2-L@X + JES2-L@Y + (JES2-L@Z,JES2-L@T) is valid (parens indicate a
peered list), but (JES2-L@X,JES2-L@Y) + (JES2-L@Z,JES2-L@T) is not.
What happened is LISTSERV@CEARN found a peered list with list-ID "JES2-L" in
the list of lists. It also happened to have a local list with the same
list-ID, and this local list also happened to be a peered one. So, these two
(the local one and the stuff in the list of lists) MUST be the same peer
chain. Unfortunately that isn't quiet the case, as LISTSERV has discovered
that there are peered nodes in the list of list which do not appear in the
local "Peers=" keywords (it assumes that nodes which are not in the list of
list but do appear in the "Peers=" keyword are merely 1.5m sites, and doesn't
complain about it). The stuff in the message is what is in the list of lists.
But the list header at CEARN says the peers are CEARN, VTVM2, VTVM1 and
NDSUVM1. No BARILVM there, but BARILVM *is* in the list of lists, and its
JES2-L list header does contain a "Peers=" keyword. So you have an
inconsistency in the network definition of the peer chain for JES2-L, which
LISTSERV is telling you about. You might never have realized without this
message :-)
Eric
|