> I should have said served OUT  instead of served OFF.    Thanks for
> the correction.   (Prepositions are challenging enough in my native
> English,  in which alarms go off bv going on and we fill out forms to
> fill them in!  Computer-speak I consider a foreign tongue, which I am
> learning haltingly.)

Served out and served off mean the same thing.  LISTSERV accepts both.

> This was the situation which prompted my question:  A subscriber on
> one of my lists was unable to post to the list,LISTSERV notified me
> that he had been served out,  I corrected that with the serve
> command, and he verified his restoration with a (discreet but
> visible) test message.
>
> Some one very kindly wrote me privately that a subscriber  might be
> able to test invisibly wih QUERY.  Unfortunately, I did not think to
> look at the subscriber's  options before sending the corrective
> command,  so I can only guess.  But I am a little hesitant, because,
> while being served out might kick in NOPOST in Classic, NOPOST is not
> available in LITE.  I would think an invisible test of being served
> in would work the same way in both listserv versions.

Any command to LISTSERV will do.  If you get a response, you are not
served out.  NOPOST is not forced by SERVE OUT, but someone who is
served out cannot post because their messages are diverted to the
list owner.