At 04:03 PM 1/10/97 -0700, Dan Lester <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >At 03:31 PM 1/10/97 +0000, Carlton Conley wrote: >>> Another thought for getting rid of the trekdog/dogtrek user would be to >>> tell listserv to GET the entire list (remember to UNLOCK it when you're >>> done) and scan it with an editor or by hand. >> >>Or REVIEW LISTNAME will return the list without need to lock or unlock and >then >>can use text search to try various combintations, though like others it >may not >>at this point be an easy fine if a forward or exploder >> >review listname (nol >is the easiest way. One command, not two. Not even a short period of >seconds or minutes for it to be locked. > >Review doesn't give you all the members (some may be concealed, and in my >experience those seem quite frequently to be the troublesome ones). For some reason, I'd always *assumed* that review would show concealed subscribers to the list owner, but you could well be right. If not, then: QUERY <listname> WITH CONCEAL FOR *@* ought to get you the rest (albeit, in not quite as convenient a form as you might like to feed to a shell/awk/perl script). Cheers, Stan