HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: ---TerraLuna------*   ...Evolution at Work
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:59:54 EST
From:         Steve Traugott <stevegt@TERRALUNA.ORG>
Subject:      Host for New List

Hi All!

Is anyone interested in hosting a new list (UUYAN-L) for the
Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network?

This list is a spinoff from UUs-L@UBVM (Unitarian Universalists'
general discussion list) -- for redundancy I want to let other sites
have a chance to host it before I ask Jim Gerland if he's interested
in Yet Another List.  ;-)

Being a spinoff from an existing list, we can make some pretty
precise estimates about what the list properties will be:

Members will be Unitarians, Religious Studies professors, Campus
Ministers of several faiths, and many other interested people.  Target
age range for UUYAN-L is 18-35 - most members will be University
students and recently graduated working professionals.  Most members
will reside in the United States and Canada, with one or two in
Europe most likely on exchange tours.

List population will start at about 35 members, growing to about 150
in six months, and leveling off there - message traffic of about 7
messages (about 6k each) a day will chase away any more subscribers.
List traffic tends to be very thoughtful and zero-flame - heavier or
lower-quality traffic kills the reason people subscribe.

Content will range from theological discussions to conference
announcements to general e-mail and net usage tips.

List will be moderated at startup, switch to unmoderated after
addresses are validated, and list owner will reserve possibility of
switching to moderated for fire control at any given time (haven't
had to do it with UUs-L).

The RENEWAL keyword will be used, and no Notebooks will be needed -
the archives will reside on an archive server at TerraLuna.Org.  A
FAQ and Charter will be posted on the list monthly by a scheduled job
at TerraLuna.

TerraLuna.Org is my own domain, with a stable commercial feed
(PSINET) to my domain server.

I will be primary list owner (setting Owner= addresses in at least two
independent domains), electing at least one alternate owner from the
list membership after about two months.

That should just about cover it...  ;-)

Steve
---                     .        .    `   *
Steve Traugott             `    .  *           +       stevegt@TerraLuna.Org
 ...Better Organizations Now         +    ` .   .      stevegt@well.sf.ca.us
Unix/Internet Systems Engineer         .    stevegt@TerraLuna.SpaceCoast.Org
Currently Contracting in Kingston N.Y.   .    UUs-L@UBVM.BITNET List Manager
From: NULTY@STLAWU.BITNET (Helen P. Nulty)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: still a bug with 17e?
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:47:15 GMT
Organization: St. Lawrence University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <NULTY@STLAWU>

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.
   -----------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id:  <18NOV92.10845846.0005.MUSIC@SLUMUS>
Date:        Wed, 18 Nov 92 10:02:32 EST
From:        MAILER AT SLUMUS <$EMD@SLUMUS>
To:          "$EMP000" <$EMP@SLUMUS>
Subject: Undeliverable Mail


The following errors occurred while attempting to send this mail file.

Sender is: SLUMUS@HNUL000

*10.02.24 No LOCAL mail recipient found in the mail envelope
*10.02.24 No mail sender found in the mail envelope

-----------------------------  ORIGINAL MESSAGE  -------------------------------

* St. Lawrence University BITNET Directory as of OCT 29, 1992 08:42
USERID    NAME
========  ======================
AVAN      van Epps, Amy
...

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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:44:30 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI
              16 Nov 1992 16:32:32 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:32:32 EST Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM> said:

> You could have the copy of DOMAIN NAMES that LISTSERV@UBVM uses route
> the various domains to different places.  That is, send .COM entries
> to the local SMTP server, send .EDU entries to another server, and
> .GOV someplace else...  Yes, it's gross, but it would divide the 8k+
> recipients into at least a few chunks.

This is  roughly what  some of  the INTERBIT  sites do  to slice  off the
traffic: .EDU goes to  SMTPA, .COM goes to SMTPB, and so  on. As you said
it is gross, but it works.

A more  interesting approach,  given that  LISTSERV never  generates more
than a configurable  amount of RCPT TO:'s on a  given message (by default
500 - it seems  to be the highest most mailers appear  to take), would be
to have  the mailer alternate  between a number  of different hosts  in a
round  robin fashion.  To do  that  it would  of  course have  to be  fed
configuration  statements of  the type  "when sending  mail to  INTERBIT,
alternate between  the following actual  nodeids" which would have  to be
carefully  synchronized with  BITEARN  NODES changes  and absolutely  not
configured once and  then forgotten until one of the  nodeids in question
is deleted  and mail starts bouncing  :-) Unfortunately I can't  think of
any better solution at the moment, given that I would hate to see special
hardcoded statements for  the node INTERBIT (and what  about UUCPGATE and
others then?).

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:46:58 CST
From:         Jonathon Simon <JSIMON@TRINITY.BITNET>
Subject:      Allowing posting from subscriber aliases and alternate node names

Allowing posting from subscriber aliases and alternate node names.
What's the best way to do this.  We're doing:
      Joe-user@Trinity.edu            (VM bitnet name with set mail on)
      Joe-user@VM1.TUCC.Trinity.Edu   (VM internet name with set mail off)
      Joe-user@VM1.TUCC.Trinity.Edu   (PC node with set mail off)

Is there a better way?  Some way to associate all these users/nodes as
one with a single common home address?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:39:16 CST
From:         Landy Manderson <USTS034@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New error message
Comments: To: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" <LSTSRV-L@UGA.BITNET>,
          shih@kentvm.BITNET

The new version of LISTSERV now 'escapes' the double quote character (")
when it is found in a list name.  Mail that is sent out using these 'escapes'
is apparently unacceptable to UCLAmail (and possibly other mailers).  The
problem can be corrected by changing the list name from:

           "Romance Readers Anonymous"

to simply:

           Romance Readers Anonymous

Pete Nielsen from UCLAMVS sent out a message about this a couple of days ago.

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:14:00 EDT Christine Shih said:
>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
>
>{...}
>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
>{...}
>Reply-To:     "\"Romance Readers Anonymous\"" <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>
>Sender:       "\"Romance Readers Anonymous\"" <RRA-L@KENTVM.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:25:48 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deleting Files
              23 Nov 1992 14:07:48 CST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

LISTSERV won't let you remove the  entry without removing the file first,
because  that would  create  a stray  file that  would  waste disk  space
forever.  And it  can't delete  it  for you  when you  remove the  entry,
because  the file  might be  needed for  other things.  Just use  the PUT
command to delete the file and then remove the FILELIST entry as you did.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:32:32 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Large list processing (NAVIGATE@UBVM) - FYI

 You could have the copy of DOMAIN NAMES that LISTSERV@UBVM uses route
 the various domains to different places.  That is, send .COM entries
 to the local SMTP server, send .EDU entries to another server, and
 .GOV someplace else...  Yes, it's gross, but it would divide the 8k+
 recipients into at least a few chunks.  There are 63 entries for
 domains serviced by SMTP@INTERBIT in DOMAIN NAMES, although I'd guess
 that the majority of your subscribers fall into a handful of those.
 So, if you're going to try this method, you'll have to find an SMTP
 gateway willing to handle rather large bundles of mail I'd guess.

 -jj

 PS - This is what an ex-coworker of mine used to call "a nasty hack". :)

 PPS - I'd invite comments from other people on the pro's/con's of doing
 something like this.  I've posted it since it's the only thing that comes
 to mind for splitting up the traffic.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"LSTSRV-L@SEARN.SUNET.SE"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:19:55 +0200
From:         Robert Al Hartshorn <AL@CCVS4.TECHNION.AC.IL>
Comments: To: LSTSRV-L@SEARN.SUNET.SE

>On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:03:45 CST THE GAR <GLWARNER@SAMFORD> said:
>
>>What do I have to do to make a List LDBASE searchable?
>
>Keep archives. It becomes automatically searchable.
>
>  Eric
>
Read the section about setting up NOTEBOOK

      Notebook= Yes,F,Monthly,Public

Al
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:03:13 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: merging vm/sp systems
              16 Nov 1992 09:47:24 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:47:24 EST Ed Fair <CCUSEEF@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
said:

>will all the listservs around  the world modify their subscription lists
>as follows?
>
>x@gtri01            -> x@gitvm1
>x@gtri01.bitnet     -> x@gitvm1.bitnet
>x@gtri01.gatech.edu -> x@gitvm1.gatech.edu

For servers running 1.7d or 1.7e,  the answer is yes, not applicable, and
no. There is  no way to turn  Internet address A into  Internet address B
because there is no equivalent to ':oldnode.' for the Internet.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:01:21 CST
From:         Jonathon Simon <JSIMON@TRINITY.BITNET>
Subject:      Allowing posting from subscriber aliases and alternate node names

Repost of my orginal note with a correction
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
Allowing posting from subscriber aliases and alternate node names.
What's the best way to do this.  We're doing:
      Joe-user@Trinity.edu            (VM bitnet name with set mail on)
      Joe-user@VM1.TUCC.Trinity.Edu   (VM internet name with set mail off)
      Joe-user@PCMAIL.Trinity.Edu     (PC node with set mail off)

Is there a better way?  Some way to associate all these users/nodes as
one with a single common home address?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:47:24 EST
From:         Ed Fair <CCUSEEF@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:      Re: merging vm/sp systems
Comments: To: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" <LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu>
              13 Nov 1992 23:23:27 +0100 from <ERIC%SEARN.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>

i think what we'll do then is move them in mid-december and make the
bitearn nodes change so as to come out on jan 1.  will all the listservs
around the world modify their subscription lists as follows?

x@gtri01            -> x@gitvm1
x@gtri01.bitnet     -> x@gitvm1.bitnet
x@gtri01.gatech.edu -> x@gitvm1.gatech.edu

ed
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:16:03 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: file versions inconsistency
              20 Nov 1992 10:10:58 MST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

When running compiled code you have to provide LISTSERV with R/O (or of
course R/W) access to the SEXEC files so that it can extract the actual
dates and not fail the file version check.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computing Center, Virginia Tech.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:23:42 EST
From:         Greg Kroll <USDGK@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      question regarding FULL (or FULLBSMTP) header option

I was wondering why, when I set my header option for a list to FULL (or
FULLB), LISTSERV inserts the header tag "Newsgroups:"?  This certainly
cannot mean there is a corresponding usenet newsgroup by that name,
does it?  If there is I did not create it and know nothing about it.
As an example let's say I have a list called TEST-L.  If I set my
header option to FULL I will get the following header tag in mail sent
from the TEST-L list:

Newsgroups:  bit.listserv.test-l

My question is why?


--Greg Kroll
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:18:56 EST
From: Bill Verity <WHV@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Archives for Peered list (was Re: VERRRRY large lists)

In article <LSTSRV-L%92111523355750@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>, "A. Harry Williams"
<HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU> says:

>...
>... The only reason I'd peer a list today
>would be to distribute the archives through out the network.

I've agreed to peer 7 lists recently and I've deliberately NOT kept
local notebooks.  It seems to me that having distributed archives is a
pain since only the original (oldest) host has complete archives.  And,
being basically selfish, I didn't want to give up any more disk space
than I had to.  This does mean that the archives have to be public, since
the "base" site doesn't know about the members at the other locations.
If the archives get searched a lot, this does put a heavy load on the
"base" site.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:36:09 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: still a bug with 17e?
              18 Nov 1992 10:12:46 EDT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:12:46 EDT "Helen P. Nulty" <NULTY@STLAWU> said:

>With release  17e our MUSIC/SP  users are unable  to GET files  from our
>LISTSERV.  The files  requested  end  up on  the  postmaster account  as
>undeliverable mail. LISTSERV appears to turn the address inside out. For
>example, a file destined for hnul@slumus is addressed slumus@hnul, which
>of course does not exist. Version 17d worked fine. Help!

I'm not sure I understand. If you  are talking about the RSCS address, it
most certainly is  in the right order,  or nobody would be  able to order
anything. If you're talking about the Netdata headers which were recently
discussed, the userid  and nodeid are separately labelled  tags which can
be present  in any  order and  in fact  LISTSERV uses  the same  order as
DMSDDL (plus when sending to a  mailing list for instance the destination
tags do  not contain  the recipient's address).  If you're  talking about
files ordered  with F=MAIL,  I have just  tried it and  it seems  to work
fine. Is the  problem specific to MUSIC  or does it affect  also your CMS
userid?

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:16:26 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Subscriptions/mail from invalid BITNET nodes
              17 Nov 1992 13:12:00 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:12:00 EST "Bill Verity (814) 865-4758" <WHV@PSUVM>
said:

>At any rate ... I have two questions.

I took the liberty of answering them in the opposite order.

>2. Wouldn't  if be possible to  LISTSERV to detect this  immediately. It
>thinks it is sending to a BITNET node  but it isn't in any tables. Can I
>set a switch to request that listserv not send anything to a bitnet node
>that doesn't exist. I suppose this might cause some premature rejections
>around the time when routing tables change.

LISTSERV doesn't trust its copy of BITEARN NODES, because, human laziness
being what it is, the majority of servers have an outdated version. While
the  monthly messages  on NODMGT-L  have helped  a lot  with outrageously
outdated sites, this is exactly how many of the servers get updated: once
every 6 months when it starts  looking too outrageous. The reason is that
there is no  clear documentation on the UPDNODES process  that I know of,
plus some people find  it too complicated to run, so they  just get a new
BITEARN NODES twice a year.

It wouldn't help  much if LISTSERV didn't send out  the files, because it
would presumably  send a  nastygram to the  postmaster instead.  When the
files  are  sent,  they bounce  back  and  a  nastygram  is sent  to  the
postmaster anyway :-)

>1. Once  I'm aware  of messages  coming from  such a  node, can  I alert
>LISTSERV to reject them  and send them to me. I'd like  to try to figure
>out where it  is coming from and  send them a note  suggesting that they
>correct their mail configuration.

You can  add '*@IRIS' to the  TRAPIN variable. For the  reasons mentioned
above I do  not want to trap  incoming commands just on the  basis of not
being defined in BITEARN NODES.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: U of Arizona, Computer Center
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:10:58 MST
From:         Beth Landis <BETH@ARIZVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      file versions inconsistency

Whenever our listserv does a check for file versions consistency, it
reports an error.

We are running compiled code, so the dates are different than what
V17E FILEVERS shows as correct.

What's the best way to fix this?

Beth Landis, U of Arizona       BITNET:   beth@arizvm1
Systems Programmer              INTERNET: beth@arizvm1.ccit.arizona.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:39:10 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deleting a List
              16 Nov 1992 23:54:47 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

The list of lists is updated overnight,  so if you haven't waited a night
please do so. If  you have, the WAKEPARM FILE in  your server is probably
missing the daily  call to LSVLDELT (no parameter) and  you should re-add
it, making  sure your PROFILE XEDIT  doesn't silently change the  file to
RECFM V in the process.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:28:41 EST
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: VERRRRY large lists

On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:58:50 +0100 Eric Thomas said:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:06:36 EST "Steven P. Roder"
><TKSSTEVE@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> said:
>
>>Anyone  have experience  with list  containing subscriptions  upwards of
>>9,000 users? This  NAVIGATE list in our  system is growing at  a rate of
>>about 2000/day (400 over the  last hour), and currently contains approx.
>>8900. Is there a limit in LISTSERV?
>
>There is no limit beyond what your CPU and disks can deliver. Before 1.7d
>lists of that size required enormous amounts of CPU time for additions of
>new subscribers and so on, so  in list archives you might find statements
>that  these lists  simply don't  work. Message  distribution still  takes
>quites a lot  of time, but then  there's no way to avoid  that and things
>are getting better with every release.
NETMONTH has at times gotten over 5,000.  As Eric states, things have improved
a lot in the last two releases for large lists.  Prior to non-sorted LIST
files, ADDs could take minutes.  They are now very reasonable.  The
distribution still takes some time.  You should examine the logs for
how long it takes to distribute an average message.  If you can afford the
time,  I'd not peer the list.  The only reason I'd peer a list today
would be to distribute the archives through out the network.

>
>  Eric
/ahw
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
From: shane@utdallas.edu (Shane Davis)
Subject: Re: merging vm/sp systems
Reply-To: shane@utdallas.edu
Organization: The Univ. of Texas at Dallas, ACC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:07:23 GMT

In article <LSTSRV-L%92111616064985@SEARN.SUNET.SE>,
         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET> writes:
|> On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:47:24 EST Ed Fair <CCUSEEF@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
|> said:
|> 
|> >will all the listservs around  the world modify their subscription lists
|> >as follows?
|> >
|> >x@gtri01            -> x@gitvm1
|> >x@gtri01.bitnet     -> x@gitvm1.bitnet
|> >x@gtri01.gatech.edu -> x@gitvm1.gatech.edu
|> 
|> For servers running 1.7d or 1.7e,  the answer is yes, not applicable, and
|> no. There is  no way to turn  Internet address A into  Internet address B
|> because there is no equivalent to ':oldnode.' for the Internet.
|> 
|>   Eric

The way to handle the last case is to put an MX record in your nameserver
(or a CNAME, which would also cover the case of people using TELNET or some
other application, if you want) which points gtri01.gatech.edu to
gitvm1.gatech.edu . You may have already been planning that...it is all that
is necessary to get the mail there.

--Shane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: St. Lawrence University
X-Acknowledge-To: <NULTY@STLAWU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:12:46 EDT
From:         "Helen P. Nulty" <NULTY@STLAWU.BITNET>
Subject:      still a bug with 17e?

With release 17e our MUSIC/SP users are unable to GET files from our
LISTSERV.  The files requested end up on the postmaster account as
undeliverable mail.  LISTSERV appears to turn the address inside out.
For example, a file destined for hnul@slumus is addressed slumus@hnul,
which of course does not exist.  Version 17d worked fine.  Help!

HELEN P. NULTY     315-379-5979
ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY
COMPUTER SERVICES, WHITMAN HALL
CANTON, NY  13617
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU