>That's the point I was referring to. What if your header says that >there are several peers (EB0 among them), but an intermediate LISTSERV >doesn't not mention one as peer (e.g. EB0) ? The DEL-REQ will not be >propagated to that server. >In the example brought by Richard, the subscriber is located in DEARN, >so even if you sent the req to EB0 and our server resends the req to the >'peers' mentioned in its header, may be the server at DEARN will reject >the req as coming from a non-peered list -if EB0 is not mentioned there >as a peer- ( am I wrong ? ) > >BUT, if the server is mentioned as a 'slave' or 'listening' one, >the poor subscriber who wanted his name deleted will still receive >the contributions. > >Best regards, Miguel Surely this is a situation which should not be allowed to occur. If one peer cannot or will not be updated to have symmetrical links with other peers, it should be removed. Ideally, a peer list group ought to have at least one "global" owner who could correct the situation. Sites which feel they cannot support non-local list owners ought to be willing to maintain peered lists in a timely fashion; if they are not, the other sites in the peer group ought to remove the uncooperative site despite the possible detriment to the network load. --Mark