I've never been a fan of no-archive lists, so it's a blind spot for me.  Paul is correct.

Nathan

At 10:47 AM 12/27/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>On 12/27/2006 09:33, Nathan Brindle wrote:
>>
>>Depending on how granular you want your report to be, it may not even be 
>> necessary to look inside the files.  If it's sufficient to know that the
>> last post was in, i.e., March 2004, then the file names will usually be
>> enough.
>>
>>That falls through if you have single or yearly archives of course.
>
>It also falls through for lists which are configured with no archives, because
>there are no files to search.
>
>>Another option would be to run a search command that returns only the last 
>> post.  For example the command
>>
>>search * in lstsrv-l.last1
>
>This command relies on the presence of list archives, so it, too, falls through
>for lists which are configured with no archives.
>
>The earlier suggestion to mine this information from the system-wide changelog
>should cover these cases, assuming, of course, that the system-wide changelog is
>enabled, the lists have been used since it was enabled, and the changelog files
>are archived for posterity.
>
>-- 
>Paul Russell, Senior Systems Administrator
>OIT Messaging Services Team
>University of Notre Dame
>[log in to unmask]