>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