On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:27:20 EST, John Lyon <[log in to unmask]>  said:
> in the same message is beyond me. My guess is the problem with your way
> to do this has to do with Listserv trying to process two (or more) conflicting
> commands in the same message. At times when Listserv is busy it may be
> still trying to GET and LOCK the list while it trys to execute the UNLOCK
> command. This is why the commnds don't always yeild the same results in
> the order they were given. I'm sure Lsoft discovered this long ago and why
> this method is not recommended.

This implies that Listserv is a lot more multithreaded than it actually is.

Hint: Look at the console log - do you *ever* see console messages for two
commands intermixed?

The *real* reason Lsoft doesn't recommend this is because the list owner
*will* forget to send the UNLOCK, or they'll send it to the wrong place, or
their mail server will lose it, or...  Every once in a while, I'll come across
one of our lists that's been locked for months just because the list owner
messed up and didn't say 'NOLOCK'.

--
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Operating Systems Analyst
                                Virginia Tech