On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Michele Francis wrote:
> Yes, i have a super-list with 10 subscribers and a sub-list
> with 40+ subscribers.  When a post is posted by the
> super-list subscriber, all (both super and sub) get the post
> and the poster gets a copy of the message.  So repro is
> working.

OK.

> When a post is posted by a sub-list subscriber, all (both
> super and sub) get the post, ...

Do you mean, "When a post is posted TO THE SUPERLIST by a
sub-list subscriber, all (both super and sub) get the post,
..."?

If so, that means this person is either ALSO a subscriber to the
superlist, or that the superlist has "send= public" (otherwise,
how could his postings get posted to that superlist?).

If not, then there's more to your lists' configuration than
you're telling/aware of?? E.g., these "sub-list subscribers" are
owners/editors of the superlist.


> but the poster never gets a copy of the message, which we
> want to happen.  So repro doesn't work for the sub-list....

No. Assuming your description is strictly correct (which frankly
I don't understand why), then if the person is ONLY a sub-list
subscriber AND somehow gets to post to the SUPERlist (as you
stated), then he wouldn't expect to receive a REPRO from that
SUPERlist since he's not subscribed to it. REPRO applies to list
subscribers, not to "public" posters. One might think that he
still should have received the posting from the sublist (simply
as one of the SUBlist subscribers --not because he authored the
SUPERlist posting). So, it would seem that LISTSERV is pruning
the list of recipients in an odd way (Remember Pete Weiss'
observation regarding LISTSERV's behavior). (Or, your
description above is wrong about who is posting where and not
receiving whatever?)

Peter R

> So, how is the superlist know not to send a copy of the
> message to the sub-list poster?????  How? I don't know.
>
> thanks for all the help.....I appreciate it.