See the following from the listserv Managers guide: "maybe" this will allow you to recover your list? It's definitely worth a try! Let us know how it goes .... Chris GET listname <( options> Get a copy of a list in a form suitable for editing and storing the list and lock it so that other list owners can't modify it until you store it back (or until you or they issue an UNLOCK command). The options are: Global Forward request to all peers HEADer Send just the header; on the way back, only the header will be updated. This is the recommended way to modify your list header. NOLock Do not lock the list OLD Recover the "old" copy of the list (before the last PUT) SO .. I would think you could do a " get listname (OLD " command and maybe that would work? You may want to check with the folks at listserv...maybe one of them would be kind enough to answer you here. Take care! -----Original Message----- From: Valdis Kletnieks [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:01 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Win NT4 & Listserv Lite 1.8d request for urgent assistance On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:10:23 +1000, Marco Ostini <[log in to unmask]> said: > So, being a bit of a hacker (NOT Cracker) I had a look in the .LIST file > for the list in question and edited the owner portion of it so that it was > my email address instead of my predecessor. You didn't edit it in-place, rather than with a GET/PUT pair or the Web interface? Did you? Please say you didn't... > Now if I run: > lcmd \\ourserver show lists > I get this lovely response quite a number of times; > > >>> Error X'00280073' opening file C:\LISTSERV\MAIN\AS_STAFF.LIST <<< > -> Severity: Error > -> Facility: LFxxx routines > -> Abstract: Internal file structure corrupted > -> I/O mode: Record read Umm.. Guess you did. ;) > Please help me out of this. I need to: > > 1) take control of all the lists Getting yourself listed as the Postmaster should do it.. > 2) repair the corruption in the as_staff list You *do* have backups, right? > 3) add and remove users as necessary - this is becoming critical Solving (1) and/or (2) will fix (3). -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech