> I should have said served OUT instead of served OFF. Thanks for > the correction. (Prepositions are challenging enough in my native > English, in which alarms go off bv going on and we fill out forms to > fill them in! Computer-speak I consider a foreign tongue, which I am > learning haltingly.) Served out and served off mean the same thing. LISTSERV accepts both. > This was the situation which prompted my question: A subscriber on > one of my lists was unable to post to the list,LISTSERV notified me > that he had been served out, I corrected that with the serve > command, and he verified his restoration with a (discreet but > visible) test message. > > Some one very kindly wrote me privately that a subscriber might be > able to test invisibly wih QUERY. Unfortunately, I did not think to > look at the subscriber's options before sending the corrective > command, so I can only guess. But I am a little hesitant, because, > while being served out might kick in NOPOST in Classic, NOPOST is not > available in LITE. I would think an invisible test of being served > in would work the same way in both listserv versions. Any command to LISTSERV will do. If you get a response, you are not served out. NOPOST is not forced by SERVE OUT, but someone who is served out cannot post because their messages are diverted to the list owner.