Stan, I am enclosing both messages that she got below, the
first being what she would normally get and the other of what
she was "complaining" about. I'm told that a possible reason
was that the keyword editor had the "hold" attribute removed
causing the second response.

This  message  was  originally  submitted by 
[log in to unmask]
to  the
TUI-COHORT-L  list at  LISTSERV.JMU.EDU. You  can  approve it
 using the
"OK"
mechanism (click on the link below), ignore  it, or repost an
edited
copy. The
message will expire  automatically and you do  not need to do
 anything
if you
just want to discard it. Please refer to the list owner's
guide if you
are not
familiar  with  the   "OK"  mechanism;  these  instructions  
are  being
kept
purposefully  short  for  your  convenience in  processing  large
numbers  of
messages.

To APPROVE the message:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?OK=9F187129&L=TUI-COHORT-L
**********following is other message***************
This  message   was  originally  submitted  by  
[log in to unmask]
to  the
TUI-COHORT-L list  at LISTSERV.JMU.EDU. If  you simply 
forward it back
to the
list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields
(ask your
local user
support or consult the documentation of your mail program if
in doubt),
it will
be  distributed and  the  explanations  you are  now  reading
 will be
removed
automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you
receive into
a digest, you will have to  remove this paragraph manually.
Finally, you
should
be able  to contact  the author  of this  message by  using
the  normal
"reply"
function of your mail program.

----------------- Message requiring your approval (57 lines)
------------------
See the difference?



---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:48:40 -0400
>From: Stan Horwitz <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: What is this?  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>On Aug 3, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Steve Eckard wrote:
>
>> In talking with the user/owner the following is what she
>> usually receives as the editor:
>
>What's the problem? Based on the list's header, I do not see any
>abnormal behavior
>on the part of Listserv. Perhaps I missed your point.



Steve Eckard
IT Specialist
James Madison University
MSC 0601
568-8191