On 10/25/2002 04:25:12 PM Eric Thomas wrote:

>This looks ok, assuming that the line breaks, empty lines and so on are
caused
>by cut+paste and are not present in the original message.

Yes. I tried to do some clean up in my message to make it look like the
real thing but I'm sure some line breaks were introduced when it was
reformatted for sending.

>I wonder what are the spool characteristics of the file (I mean Q R ALL *

>spoolid and also the TAG).

q r all *
ORIGINID FILE CLASS RECORDS  CPY HOLD DATE  TIME     NAME      TYPE DIST
LISTTEST 0149 A PUN 00000017 001 USER 10/29 16:58:48 LBAAS     NOTE
LISTSERV

(pun held so I could view the file)

q tag d
PUN  000D TAG NOT SET

>One potential problem is that you are not using LMail, which is actually
a
>pre-req for LISTSERV, even though it will usually work if you feed
LISTSERV
>directly from FAL.

Hmm, the sales guy didn't mention the LMail prereq and the VM installation
guide says it's "recommended" but not required. Is there a requisite level
of FAL? I'm backleveled a bit but should be closer to current in Nov.

>Anyway, the whole point of this new feature is to properly support users
who
>send HTML mail by default (which is becoming the majority of users with a

>recent version of Windows and Outlook). 1.8d had absolutely no support
for
>this. The message would be processed line by line, generating error
messages,
>and eventually you would run into the first line of the text/plain part,
which
>would be executed successfully. Then more error messages and eventually
>LISTSERV would give up. It worked, but it was confusing to the users.

My experience with 1.8d has been that html formatted messages are
processed fine - no errors are sent to the user and the commands produce
the expected output. Maybe the missing LMail is the difference here as
well.

lisa