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