At 04:03 PM 1/10/97 -0700, Dan Lester <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>At 03:31 PM 1/10/97 +0000, Carlton Conley wrote:
>>> Another thought for getting rid of the trekdog/dogtrek user would be to
>>> tell listserv to GET the entire list (remember to UNLOCK it when you're
>>> done) and scan it with an editor or by hand.
>>
>>Or REVIEW LISTNAME will return the list without need to lock or unlock and
>then
>>can use text search to try various combintations, though like others it
>may not
>>at this point be an easy fine if a forward or exploder
>>
>review listname (nol
>is the easiest way.  One command, not two.  Not even a short period of
>seconds or minutes for it to be locked.
>
>Review doesn't give you all the members (some may be concealed, and in my
>experience those seem quite frequently to be the troublesome ones).
 
For some reason, I'd always *assumed* that review would show concealed
subscribers to the list owner, but you could well be right.
 
If not, then:
        QUERY <listname> WITH CONCEAL FOR *@*
ought to get you the rest (albeit, in not quite as convenient a form as
you might like to feed to a shell/awk/perl script).
 
Cheers,
Stan