HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:13:10 EST
From:         "Steven P. Roder" <TKSSTEVE@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM)

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:43:35 +0100 Eric Thomas said:
>............ The only problem is that the Internet recipients all fall on
>the same  host, and that can  be a problem  if that machine is  loaded or
>poorly connected. I wouldn't know - this is for Jim to judge.
>
I decided to just pick one of these posting, and try to reply to most of the
issues at once. Firstly, the Navigate list is a temporary animal.  Basically,
it is an Electronic Seminar on "how to use Internet Services".  The lessons
will be posted to the list, with replies sent to the list Editors.  If you
want a more complete description, then subscribe.  The Seminar begins on
11/18/92, at which time subscriptions will be turned off.  Once the Seminar
is complete, the list will be turned off.  Any amount of effort expended to
peer the list, or put it on some newsgroup, would be a wasted effort.

Jim's test posting, as reported here yesterday, went fairly smoothly.  We
do a couple of things here already that lessened the impact of this list.
LISTSERV@UBVM, as most of you might already know, uses MAILER_L and SMTP_L
for outgoing mail.  This separates all outgoing LISTSERV traffic from our
local traffic.  Of course, outgoing local listserv traffic is routed thru
our other mail pair, MAILER and SMTP.  Local service is excellent, no matter
what LISTSERV may be doing.  Also, since we have had problems with SMTP mail
delivery to a number of .MIL sites, all .MIL traffic is routed to a single
.MIL node, and then distributed to the rest of .MIL from there.  All of this
has been accomplished through changes to DOMAIN NAMES, and the MAILER PROFILE.
So, within a moments notice, I could very easily reroute entire domains of
mail to some host, but would rather not make changes for a temporary list,
unless absolutely necessary.  And, since I have 2 SMTP's, I can manually
transfer files form on reader to the other, splitting the host-load.

BTW, our channel-to-ethernet device is an 8232, and we have T1 to get off
campus (via NYSERNet).


Steve Roder
(tkssteve@ubvm.bitnet | tkssteve@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu | (716)645-3564
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:49:34 EST
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Need help with EXPLODE and Internet subscribers

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:45:45 NFT Turgut Kalfaoglu said:
>I suspect that your server is thinking that you are the closest host to
>the SMTP@INTERBIT, thus considering that the other 9000+ users are fine
>where they are. I can't think of a solution for it, however.. -turgut
And in fact, once you have exploded and peered it, you can get some
very strange closest to SMTP@INTERBIT.  I have a couple of peered
lists that I'm going to have to adjust the order of the peers statement
to spread out the SMTP@INTERBIT load.  I have tried to keep the list of
nodes in alpha order in the past on all peers, and poor AWIIMC12 is
getting a lot of the internet traffic as a result.
/ahw
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
From: schafer@is.rice.edu (Richard Alan Schafer)
Subject: Forcing an F=
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:05:58 GMT

I have a package for which an AFD with F=PUNCH is appropriate for all but
one file of the package, which is a module file.  Is there a way, either in
the filelist or in the $package file, to specify that a specific file needs
an F=NETDATA (or whatever) inserted to override an F=PUNCH specification
on the AFD?
-- 
Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:51:15 EST
From:         Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:52:16 +0100 Eric Thomas said:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:39:55 EST Jim Gerland - Network User Support
><GERLAND@UBVM> said:
>
>>LISTSERV sent 1 file to 16 other LISTSERVs with mail for 2,074 people
>
>Who will probably get it in a  matter of minutes, with dozens of machines
>working on it in parallel.
>
>>LISTSERV sent 8,458 pieces to BSMTP for handling.
>
>Who will have to wait a lot more  to get their own copy. I feel sorry for
>the SMTP server which will have to service this list, and it better be on
>the T3 backbone, not on a 56k access point :-)

This is probably reason enough to peer the list.  If some way can be
determined to split up the SMTP addresses, so that they are distributed
across 10 servers located on the IP backbone.  10*800 has to be better than
1*8000.

Harold
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:28:59 LCL
Reply-To:     DSARGENT@UTFSM.BITNET
From:         "Douglas Sargent (The Bug)" <DSARGENT@UTFSM.BITNET>
Subject:      New release of LSV not intalled

Hi all,

    Even though all the parts of the new release of LSV are in the
reader of LSV, it has not installed. Checking through the INSTALL
FILE , i found that i had a :Spool write error, failed.

   Unfortunately operations had erased all my reader files, so i never
got this notification via mail. What can i do to reinstall the new
version ?


The Bug
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:39:55 EST
From:         Jim Gerland - Network User Support <GERLAND@UBVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI
Comments: cc: Steve Roder <TKSSTEVE@UBVM.BITNET>,
          Chuck Dunn <chuck@UBVM.BITNET>, Richard Smith <rjs4808@usl.edu>,
          Frank Rens <rens@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>,
          Rick Lesniak <lesniak@UBVM.BITNET>

Just thought I'd let the net know of my experience this morning.  Doesn't
look like a problem (yet ;-)).


Results of my test mailing at 9:32 Monday 16-Nov-1992 (FYI).

LISTSERV began processing mail for navigate----------------------------

16 Nov 1992 09:32:25 Processing file 3036 from GERLAND@UBVM
16 Nov 1992 09:36:00 Mail was DISTRIBUTEd to 10650 recipients.

LISTSERV finished processing mail for navigate-------------------------

16 Nov 1992 09:34:07 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UCBCMSA  for   194 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:07 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@VTVM2    for    77 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:07 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UGA      for   204 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:08 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@MIZZOU1  for   286 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:09 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@USCVM    for   111 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:09 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@BUACCA   for    78 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:10 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UICVM    for   329 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:12 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@PSUVM    for   248 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:12 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UTORONTO for   168 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:12 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@RICEVM1  for   105 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:12 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UMDD     for    70 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:13 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@ALBNYVM1 for    27 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:13 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@PUCC     for    76 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:13 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@YALEVM   for    43 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:13 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@SEARN    for     9 recipients.
16 Nov 1992 09:34:13 Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@SUVM     for    49 recipients.
                                                             =====
LISTSERV sent 1 file to 16 other LISTSERVs with mail for     2,074 people

LISTSERV sent 8,458 pieces to BSMTP for handling.

LISTSERV sent to 80 UB subscribers.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:15:46 CST
From:         "Ben E. Colley" <TPMAINT@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: VERRRRY large lists
Comments: cc: Bob Sappington <CCROBERT@MIZZOU1.BITNET>

As you recall, as we were leaving today I indicated that noc had no problem
resolving and pinging ubcm.cc.buffalo.edu.

At this time (much later) mizzou1 is having *no* difficulty resolving and
pinging the same host.  It must have been an isolated incident when you
recieved the msg...

Ben
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:06:07 EST
From:         Paul Goodwin <CC100PG@GITVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM)
Comments: To: dupuy@cs.columbia.edu, LISTSERV list <lstsrv-l@uga.BITNET>
              16 Nov 1992 13:50:00 EST from <dupuy@TIEMANN.CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:50:00 EST Alexander Dupuy said:
>Assuming that roughly 75% of the 8500 non-BITNET subscribers have access to
>netnews and are willing to subscribe to NAVIGATE as a newsgroup rather than as
>a mailing list, it should be possible to split the discussion group into three


There is also a NETNEWS implementation which runs on VM (I think that's still
the biggest BITNET OS).

Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: St. Lawrence University
X-Acknowledge-To: <NULTY@STLAWU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:00:47 EDT
From:         "Helen P. Nulty" <NULTY@STLAWU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: still a bug with 17e?
              18 Nov 1992 16:50:35 EST from <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>

Thanks, Harry.  Your fix did the trick.  Thanks for all the tips and
suggestions.

HELEN P. NULTY     315-379-5979
ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY
COMPUTER SERVICES, WHITMAN HALL
CANTON, NY  13617
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:14:00 EDT
From:         Christine Shih <SHIH@KENTVM.BITNET>
Subject:      New error message

Can someone help me with the following error message?  It seems that
all our lists now have the "\" characters before and after the
description name.  Anything I forgot to set or reset?

The list owner is asking me what to do with these.

Thanks for your help.

Christine Shih
SHIH@KENTVM
Postmater at KENTVM

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The enclosed mail file, found in the RRA-L reader and shown under the spoolid
8271 in  the console log,  has been identified  as a possible  delivery error
notice for the following reason: mail subject indicates a delivery problem.

------------------------- Message in error (30 lines) -------------------------
Received: from UCLAMVS.BITNET (POSTMAN) by KENTVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with
 BSMTP id 5865; Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:07:09 EDT
Date:    Thu, 19 Nov 92 13:06 PST
To:      RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET
From:    Postman@UCLAMVS.BITNET
Subject: Undelivered mail

Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
intended recipients for the following reason(s):

1303 invalid syntax near line: Reply-To:     "\"Romance Readers Anonymous\""
 <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>              -
1303 invalid syntax near line: Sender:       "\"Romance Readers Anonymous\""
 <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>              r

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: (from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU for <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET> via BSMTP)
Received: (from MAILER@UCBCMSA for MAILER@UCLAMVS via NJE)
 (UCLA/Mail V1.500 M-MAILER-4221-19); Thu, 19 Nov 92 13:06:24 PST
Received: from UCBCMSA.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
 BSMTP id 8107; Thu, 19 Nov 92 13:06:28 PST
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:04:11 EDT
Reply-To:     "\"Romance Readers Anonymous\"" <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>
From:         mary k <CHELTON@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject:      Diana Gabaldon's Third Book
To:           Multiple recipients of list RRA-L <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>

QUIT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:58:18 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Possible 1.7E Bug
              17 Nov 1992 13:41:50 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

1.7e formats the  file itself. The code was checked  for compatibility on
all operating systems to which I have  access and there was no problem. I
have no MVS account  so I couldn't check it for MVS.  Anyway I would need
more information to know what exactly TSO is complaining about. There are
dozens of MVS fields in Netdata headers whose description in the official
documentation of Netdata for VM is at best unclear and at most 2 lines, I
have  tried to  use the  same values  as DMSDDL  but there  may be  other
problems - for instance, the list  of required fields in the manual might
be incomplete.

  Eric
From: HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU (A. Harry Williams)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: still a bug with 17e?
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:50:35 GMT
Organization: Marist College
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:47:15 EDT Helen P. Nulty said:
>The problem is specific to MUSIC (it works fine from CMS).  From MUSIC,
>if I add F=MAIL to the GET request the file is delivered properly.
>Before 17e we did not have to do this.  We made modifications
>to our RSCS to support our MUSIC node, SLUMUS, all of which worked
>before 17e.  Below is a sample of the UNDELIVERABLE MAIL.

Well, it works fine here on our MUSIC system, however I fixed
a minor bug in the netdata decoding a while ago.  I sent the
fix to McGill, but it didn't get there in time for the last
service tape.  The bug was not apparent from CMS's SENDFILE,
but I found it with TSO's XMIT.  The two are very different animals.

Helen, I'll send you a copy of the fix offline.

/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Califonia San Francisco
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:50:05 PST
From:         Yossie Silverman <YOSSIE@UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU>
Subject:      Re: automatic filelist for archives

Never mind Eric.  I will do it.  It will be klunky and kludgy but at least
it will happen.  Thanks anyway.  - Yossie

---
Yossie Silverman                   "What did the Caspian Sea?" - Saki
I'Net:  yossie@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu
Bitnet: YOSSIE@UCSFVM              B5/4 f- w- t cd g++ k++ s++ p
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:01:51 EST
Reply-To:     dupuy@cs.columbia.edu
From:         Alexander Dupuy <dupuy@TIEMANN.CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?)
Comments: To: LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              (PAPAKHI%IUBVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu)

> I also observe that the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) has now
> also advertized its own "listserv" which is (mostly) of the non-Eric Thomas
> kind.

CNI is running the BU Un*x L*STSERV.  So it's not yet another implementation.

> Both as a user of their working-group lists and as author of LISTSERV, I
> would like them to either switch to Mailbase or let someone else run their
> lists on LISTSERV.  The other users of the lists often ask for the same.
> Some of the working group chairs have announced that they want to move their
> lists to Mailbase on another host due to all the problems they had with
> 'listserv'. The vice-president of RARE asked to be removed from all RARE
> mailing lists until the problems are solved. Here is a copy of his letter:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:54:33 +0200
> From: Juergen Harms <harms@cui.unige.ch>
> To: RARE Secretariate <raresec@rare.nl>
> Cc: RARE Council of Admininstration <coa@rare.no>
> Subject: "news" list
> Autoforwarded: TRUE

> Please remove my entry from all lists directly managed by RARE and send me
> important information by fax or paper mail. I am ready to reconsider this
> decision when the secretariate has made the proof that it knows how to
> handle mailing lists, and in particular how to set the list up in a way
> that non-delivery reports do not go to the entire list.

> Juergen
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

> So it seems we have a clear case: users want a change, some working group
> chairs actually demand a change, even top executives want a change; the EARN
> president formally asked RARE to consider switching to something else, and I
> complained about end-user confusion and the fact that running this software
> gives the impression that RARE passively condones a delicate and ethically
> controversial attitude. Nothing happened.

I don't know what version of Un*x L*STSERV the people at RARE are running, but
with version 5.5, I've never had an instance of a non-delivery report getting
sent out to a list.  It is certainly possible to misconfigure Un*x L*STSERV in
such a way that it might happen, but a good postmaster/list manager wouldn't
be likely to do so.  Even if some odd commercial mail system or X.400 gateway
sent such reports to the list, and managed to slip through the default filters,
it is quite easy to block error messages from any site by extending the
filters or adding the generating address to an "ignore" list.

So it's not clear to me that just switching the software to Mailbase or
something else would solve the problem, which seems to me to be that they
don't have enough experience to handle large mailing lists, regardless of the
software in use.

@alex
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:42:06 NFT
From:         Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: ... - battle of the LISTSERVs (?

I see the point in both cases - the name "Revised LISTSERV" comes
from the fact that there used to be (before my time :) another LISTSERV
(at BITNIC?) that had the right idea, but Eric improved it much more
with his new server, so he called it "Revised." So, the _name_ LISTSERV
existed before Revised Listserv.

Having said that, let me do a complete detour now:
Revised LISTSERV is hugely popular, and tons of users are
using it, and are USED to its command syntax and behavior.

I think it would be a BAD IDEA to make an "almost compatible" server
and call it LISTSERV now, it would confuse the hell out of users
who are used to sending a SUB, LIST, whatever to a LISTSERV, and seeing
it work.

Even now, years after the split of R.Listserv and Listearn, we still
get mailed which was meant to be sent to the "other" person-in-charge,
and it would just get worse if a third one was added - using the same
name, and I have been trying to specify LISTEARN whenever possible
to reduce the confusion.

Just my $.02's worth.. -turgut
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:45:45 NFT
From:         Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Need help with EXPLODE and Internet subscribers

I suspect that your server is thinking that you are the closest host to
the SMTP@INTERBIT, thus considering that the other 9000+ users are fine
where they are. I can't think of a solution for it, however.. -turgut
From: ERIC@SEARN.BITNET (Eric Thomas)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: subscriber network address not critical anymore?
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:09:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              18 Nov 1992 16:47:53 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

In 1.6e (3 Jul 90), along with the ':internet.' tag support.

  Eric
From: ERIC@SEARN.BITNET (Eric Thomas)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: 17E-001o: Fix to Netdata headers for TSO/E
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:34:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Revised LISTSERV Maintainers <LSTSRV-M@SEARN.BITNET>

Without this  fix, Netdata files generated  by 1.7e are missing  a header
field  which is  required by  TSO/E (but  not VM  or JNET)  for receiving
incoming files.  All sites are advised  to install this fix  as MVS users
will not  be able to  GET files in Netdata  format unless it  is applied.
Users experiencing problems  with release 1.7e servers can  try using the
F=PUNCH keyword to get an IEBGENER-style copy of the file, as a temporary
circumvention.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:52:16 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI
              16 Nov 1992 10:39:55 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:39:55 EST Jim Gerland - Network User Support
<GERLAND@UBVM> said:

>LISTSERV sent 1 file to 16 other LISTSERVs with mail for 2,074 people

Who will probably get it in a  matter of minutes, with dozens of machines
working on it in parallel.

>LISTSERV sent 8,458 pieces to BSMTP for handling.

Who will have to wait a lot more  to get their own copy. I feel sorry for
the SMTP server which will have to service this list, and it better be on
the T3 backbone, not on a 56k access point :-)

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:36:01 EST
From:         "Duane D. Weaver" <WEAVER@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      More on TSO/E RECEIVE of LISTSERV file

Performing a CMS RECEIVE on the same files as requested from TSO/E
system, encounters no problem.

I have also received word from James Bradshaw at CLEMSON (JAMES@CLEMSON)
that they have experienced the same problems.

So this is not limited TSO/E at OHSTMVSA (and to think I was ready to bash
my MVS coworkers).

Duane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:13:20 -0500
From:         CCRSCMS@BUACCA.BITNET
Comments: To: lstsrv-l@uga.bitnet

I have to get from level 1.7b to 1.7e.  I have received the UPD files.
However, there is no information that I can find on how to proceed with
them.  I've scanned FILELISTs and MEMO files, but nothing seems to
address this topic.  No INITIAL SHIPMENT file was sent, but it may not
be necessary.  The 1.6 LISTINST MEMO says to CARD LOAD files, but refers
to the files as being named VERS...., and in any case the UPD files
contain Listserv JCL prologs which prevent CARD processing.  Older
documentation makes mention of a S01-005 Maintenance Guide, but no
mention of how to GET it, or what is stored-file name is.
    I'd appreciate getting pointed in the right direction.    Thanks.
           Dick Sims, VM Systems Programmer, Boston University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:41:50 EST
From:         "Duane D. Weaver" <WEAVER@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Possible 1.7E Bug

From our TSO/E system on OHSTMVSA, I send an interative message
to LISTSERV to review a file.

If the REVIEW command is sent to a 1.7E LISTSERV site, TSO/E complains:
RESTORE NOT POSSIBLE.   INPUT DATA IS NOT COMPLETE.

If the REVIEW command is sent to a 1.7D LISTSERV site, our TSO/E
receives the file with no problem.

Did something change in the mechanism that 1.7E uses to send Netdata files?
Duane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU