On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:46:01 -0500, Winship <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If one wanted to contact same I know one could use
>[log in to unmask]      but isn't that sort of like the address for
>particular lists, supposed to be for errors only?

Yes.  owner-*@server   goes to LISTSERV's automatic error processing routines.
It is very unlikely that any human will ever see such mail so this address
should not be used for any mail you want a human to see.

>I suppose  [log in to unmask]   might work, but how does one find
>the actual address for whomever?

LISTSERV-REQUEST@server should reach the non-quiet Postmaster(s) or LISTSERV
Server Administrators of any LISTSERV(R) server.

>I don't need this for my lists, I have the addresses for those
>administrators.  I'm compiling a list of addresses on a particular
>topic (to whom, what address, do I report/send X) for subscribers to one
>of my lists.

If you send the email command HELP  or RELEASE to your  LISTSERV@server
address you will get a response showing the non-quiet, non-hidden Postmaster
address(s).

> help

... (Stuff deleted)

This server is managed by:
 [log in to unmask]

> release
LISTSERV(R) for Windows version 1.8e, managed by:
  [log in to unmask]


As you can see, on my server at least, you won't get a personal address.
Results will vary on different servers.   I do it this way for security and
privacy reasons.  (The Server Administrator's email address has lots of
privileges, but LISTSERV considers postmaster@... a special case and refuses
to accept any commands comming from that address.  So I expose an address that
will reach a human, but cannot be used in any attempts to 'hack' LISTSERV.)

If you are preparing information for List Owners at your server's site, then
you should contact your Server Admin(s) and ask what address they would like
to be used.  It may be the above  (LISTSERV-Request@... or postmaster@...) or
something else.  But let them tell you which address wil reach them best.