(* Drew: please resend  this mail to LSTSRV-L  on your side of the  big pond if
   it doesn't make through by tomorrow, late morning your time *)
 
  Scott: it is  not possible to define  "synonyms" for userids, nor  do I think
that it should  be possible. First it would cause  important security problems.
What  if you  decided that  "[log in to unmask]" was  to be  translated to
"eric@frecp11"? Then if your MAILER  is unable to reply to "scott@(...)toronto"
then I would suggest that IT be  fixed. If you have problems receiving replies,
you can always  add a '// JOB Reply-to="[log in to unmask]"'  card before your
actual commands, and you'll get the reply there.
 
  John: there is no such command, but I was precisely thinking about incorpora-
ting one in the next release. I have the very same problem as you :-)
 
  Scott again:  version 1.5 incorporates code  to trap this kind  of mail. Your
server is  at release  1.4c so does  not detect it.  All you  have to do  is to
install the latest version of the code.
 
  Jeff: hmm... sounds like  I've done a mistake. Let me first  tell you how the
PEERS NAMES file is  managed: your servitor has a file  called LSV NAMES, which
contains all the  $LISTSRV NAMES entries for all the  servers, except those who
are not yet operational, and minus those who did not send the entry at all (and
shall get a  complaining letter by the  end of the week *groan*).  There are 30
servers there.  To each entry  I added a  ":V15.OK" tag as  I got the  acks for
version 1.5. When I  creat the PEERS NAMES, I must XEDIT  this file, remove all
the entries  which do NOT  have the ":V15.OK" tag,  remove the entries  for the
servers which are  not yet operational, etc.  Needless to say, this  is quite a
bit of  a pain.  I have  unfortunately forgotten to  remove the  OUACCVMA entry
because it HAD a  :V15.OK and I had forgotten that it  was not yet operational.
As for TESTSERV, this must really have been  a BIG blunder ( ;-) ): when I sent
out version 1.4g to some of you for beta-testing, the PEERS NAMES file did have
an entry for [log in to unmask] Olivier had  installed 1.4g on his test server but
not on the  main one (which was a  good and sensible idea besides ;-)  ), and I
needed to have the test server on the  tables so that I could try out DISTRIBU-
TE. I had  manually added a ":node.CEARN :userid.TESTSERV" entry  at the top of
the file and  it seems that I  somehow forgot to remove it  before shipping the
'official' 1.5 files :-(  Sorry for that, I never intended  to have this server
made permanent in the  file. I tried to make my life easier  by keeping all the
servers in the PEERS NAMES file and putting a score of X before the nodename of
those which still didn't install 1.5 :-)
 
  Ah, if you  have altered the value  of FILEMAXL in LSV$PROF  EXEC to DECREASE
it, please let me know and tell me the value you've chosen. I will either add a
:remark tag to  your entry to remove  your server from the PEERS  NAMES file if
the value is too small (eg 1,000 lines).
 
  The status of  the various servers seems to  be a real can of  worms. Most of
you have installed 1.5 or better, but some still didn't. Two of the 1.4c owners
sent me mail  saying that they were  busy and couldn't install  the stuff right
now, and  I'd like to thank  them for letting me  know. I realize that  you all
have other  business than LISTSERV and  don't necessarily have time  to install
new versions. Anyway, I assume that the  other 1.4c owners didn't get V1.5 with
all the  DEARN/EARNET problems. Southern Europe  seems to have got  1.5b, while
northern Europe didn't; the DEARN problem  caused Harold to resend 1.5b when it
HAD in  fact crossed  the ocean through  EARNET -> BITNIC.  If you  have missed
either the 1.5,  1.5a or 1.5b files, just  let me know (or Harold  if you're on
his side) and I'll resend the appropriate stuff. If you have received two iden-
tical copies  of 1.5b, just  discard one of them;  if the copies  are different
then I should probably have a look at LSVDIST EXEC... :-)
 
  Eric
 
PS: I'd like to thank those of you that replied to by US studies inquiry. I did
    not send individual thanks because I got a lot of replies, and for the same
    reason I didn't send mail yet to the persons you said I should contacts for
    more information.  I'll try  to do it  before the end  of the  week. Thanks
    again! :-)