> Hello all,
> One of my list owners has recently received the error message below.
> Can anybody here shed some more light on this. Specifically could you
> tell me why the peer chain deduced from the other servers would not
> include the ral.ac.uk listserv machine.
Not sure on this but it looks like a List-ID problem...from the manual:
On VM systems, this keyword allows the list owner to specify a long
list ID in addition to the normal 8-character list name. This is
particularly useful for peered or gatewayed lists that have names
longer than 8 characters. On non-VM systems, if the normal list name
is longer than 8 characters and the list is being migrated from a VM
system, it may be a good idea to specify the first 8 characters of the
list name in this keyword, at least temporarily. This way subscribers
who were used to the old 8-character name can continue to use it on
the new system.
Non-VM systems may use this keyword for aliasing. However, today there
is really no good reason to use this keyword on non-VM systems, as it
is possible to define lists on such systems with native file system
names longer than 8 characters. L-Soft's recommendation is that this
keyword be used only if you are migrating a list from VM that was
known by both its "short" name and its "long" List-ID= name. (On unix
you can avoid this by simply specifying an extra set of aliases in
/etc/aliases for the "long" name that point to the same places as do
the ones for the "short" name.)
In any case a list owner should not set a value for List-ID= without
first consulting with the LISTSERV maintainer, since it will be
necessary to add appropriate system mailer aliases before the name
specified in List-ID= will work.
List-ID= will not work properly on NT systems running with the SMTPL
"listener" because the "listener" has no way to know that the list ID
specified in this parameter is a valid local address.
List-ID= will work on NT and VMS systems running LSMTP, but you must
first configure a route in LSMTP for the List-ID= name so that LSMTP
will know to deliver mail addressed to the List-ID= address to
LISTSERV (as opposed to POP or SMTP, etc.).
Under VMS and unix, it is necessary to add the appropriate aliases to
the mailer's aliases file in order for List-ID= to work, since mailers
such as sendmail and PMDF otherwise have no way to know that the name
specified in List-ID= is a valid address. This means that lists that
have the List-ID= keyword specified need two complete sets of aliases
defined (unless List-ID= is identical to the list name, in which case
it should not be implemented to begin with).
Starting with LISTSERV 1.8d, if you do use List-ID= to specify a
"long" name for a list with web archives, LISTSERV will create an HTML
page for both the long and short names. Here again, however, on non-VM
systems L-Soft does not
> I notice from the listserv
> manual that both lists must have the same list password, however to my
> knowledge the list here at RAL has never had any password. Thanks
> Duncan Russell Listserv Manager
All peered lists must have PW=XXXXXX in the header. *LIST*
passwords were done away with in 1.8c, however any peered list MUST
have the PW keyword and they must match the other peers of course.
HTH
John...
> This message from
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Warning: a possible inconsistency has been detected in the
> network-wide
> "List-ID" of the BALT-L list. The peer chain recorded in the list
> header was "[log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]", whereas the peer chain deduced from
> network-wide data contributed by the other servers was
> "[log in to unmask]". Please take the necessary steps
> to correct this error and/or contact the owners of the other peers.
|
