(* Drew: please resend this mail to LSTSRV-L on your side of the big pond if it doesn't make through by tomorrow, late morning your time *) Scott: it is not possible to define "synonyms" for userids, nor do I think that it should be possible. First it would cause important security problems. What if you decided that "[log in to unmask]" was to be translated to "eric@frecp11"? Then if your MAILER is unable to reply to "scott@(...)toronto" then I would suggest that IT be fixed. If you have problems receiving replies, you can always add a '// JOB Reply-to="[log in to unmask]"' card before your actual commands, and you'll get the reply there. John: there is no such command, but I was precisely thinking about incorpora- ting one in the next release. I have the very same problem as you :-) Scott again: version 1.5 incorporates code to trap this kind of mail. Your server is at release 1.4c so does not detect it. All you have to do is to install the latest version of the code. Jeff: hmm... sounds like I've done a mistake. Let me first tell you how the PEERS NAMES file is managed: your servitor has a file called LSV NAMES, which contains all the $LISTSRV NAMES entries for all the servers, except those who are not yet operational, and minus those who did not send the entry at all (and shall get a complaining letter by the end of the week *groan*). There are 30 servers there. To each entry I added a ":V15.OK" tag as I got the acks for version 1.5. When I creat the PEERS NAMES, I must XEDIT this file, remove all the entries which do NOT have the ":V15.OK" tag, remove the entries for the servers which are not yet operational, etc. Needless to say, this is quite a bit of a pain. I have unfortunately forgotten to remove the OUACCVMA entry because it HAD a :V15.OK and I had forgotten that it was not yet operational. As for TESTSERV, this must really have been a BIG blunder ( ;-) ): when I sent out version 1.4g to some of you for beta-testing, the PEERS NAMES file did have an entry for [log in to unmask] Olivier had installed 1.4g on his test server but not on the main one (which was a good and sensible idea besides ;-) ), and I needed to have the test server on the tables so that I could try out DISTRIBU- TE. I had manually added a ":node.CEARN :userid.TESTSERV" entry at the top of the file and it seems that I somehow forgot to remove it before shipping the 'official' 1.5 files :-( Sorry for that, I never intended to have this server made permanent in the file. I tried to make my life easier by keeping all the servers in the PEERS NAMES file and putting a score of X before the nodename of those which still didn't install 1.5 :-) Ah, if you have altered the value of FILEMAXL in LSV$PROF EXEC to DECREASE it, please let me know and tell me the value you've chosen. I will either add a :remark tag to your entry to remove your server from the PEERS NAMES file if the value is too small (eg 1,000 lines). The status of the various servers seems to be a real can of worms. Most of you have installed 1.5 or better, but some still didn't. Two of the 1.4c owners sent me mail saying that they were busy and couldn't install the stuff right now, and I'd like to thank them for letting me know. I realize that you all have other business than LISTSERV and don't necessarily have time to install new versions. Anyway, I assume that the other 1.4c owners didn't get V1.5 with all the DEARN/EARNET problems. Southern Europe seems to have got 1.5b, while northern Europe didn't; the DEARN problem caused Harold to resend 1.5b when it HAD in fact crossed the ocean through EARNET -> BITNIC. If you have missed either the 1.5, 1.5a or 1.5b files, just let me know (or Harold if you're on his side) and I'll resend the appropriate stuff. If you have received two iden- tical copies of 1.5b, just discard one of them; if the copies are different then I should probably have a look at LSVDIST EXEC... :-) Eric PS: I'd like to thank those of you that replied to by US studies inquiry. I did not send individual thanks because I got a lot of replies, and for the same reason I didn't send mail yet to the persons you said I should contacts for more information. I'll try to do it before the end of the week. Thanks again! :-)