>You're right about that but I think that is more dangerous than the list
>owner learning  about USENET and  making a concious decision  to gateway
>the list.  If an end-user subscribes  in an attempt to  gateway the list
>into USENET you can bet more than half  of the time we will see loops or
>complaints that the gateway is not working properly.
 
True but that can happen also  if an end user types /usr/ucb/vacation, or
if a local redistribution  list is set up on a site  with a funny mailer,
or  whatever. People  who  run USENET  gateways  are usually  responsible
adults who have read the documentation and understood that they've got to
be careful, and  I would expect them  to notify the list  owner about the
gatewaying. If the  scheme is changed so that  authorization is required,
and a  list owner refuses, what  will the gateway maintainer  do? Add one
line to the code with: if sender='XYZ-L#DUH' then ngroup='bit.listserv.x'
 
He'll still do the gatewaying if he  really wants to, but it will be more
dangerous (for the reasons already explained re: peered lists etc).
 
  Eric