[. . .]
>>>The sublist monitoring report
>>>listed 58 errors, every single one of which was a Probe failed.
>>>There was no crossover of errors between the two monitoring reports.
>>>
>>>My questions are:
>>>
>>>Why didn't the superlist monitoring report reflect the same Probe
>>>failed messages that the sublist monitoring report did?
>>
>>The addresses that bounced when you sent mail to a sublist should
>>have been removed.  If you sent mail to the superlist after the
>>addresses were removed then they wouldn't be there to bounce again.
>>Could that help explain this?
>
>Even with Delay(1)?  I thought this meant the list waited 1 day
>before deleting the bouncing addresses.

You've found one of the weaknesses in my argument.  Your
interpretation is (I believe) correct.

What I'm wondering is if LISTSERV doesn't issue probes for sublist
addresses.  That would make some sense (probes take up more system
resources and since sublist addresses aren't actually able to be
removed from the superlist there's no real bonus to probing them) but
I have no reason to belive that this is how LISTSERV works other than
the evidence you've presented, so I wouldn't rely on it much.

What I should do is test this.  I'm a bit short on time now but I'll
put it on my list of things to do...unless some more knowledgable
person feels like coming to my rescue...?

Thanks,
--
Jacob Haller, Technical Support
L-Soft international, Inc
http://www.lsoft.com/