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.)

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.


At 8:38 PM -0400 05/27/01, Roger Fajman wrote:
>  > 1)  Is there any way sender who was served off a list can test
>  > whether he has been effectively served back on without sending a test
>  > message without everyone else on the  list seeing it  (The THANKS
>  > command does not seem to apply here.
>
>Serving off applies to the whole LISTSERV server, not any particular list.
>So if you get a response to a THANKS command, you are not served off.
>You still could be filtered, however, for a particular list.  Looking at
>the list header with REVIEW might give you a hint, unless the filters
>are hidden.


  ___________________
        Jane-Kerin Moffat
<[log in to unmask]>