I know this is an "old" thread of a few days ago, but I'm just catching up. The ability to lookup list owners in more capable ways than listserv provides has been an ongoing problem for us. We are constantly being asked "which lists" do I own or "xxxx is no longer employed, remove them from list ownership", etc. With over 2000 lists, the reporting function is not usable for this. Or am I missing something? (Aside: is there a bug in the documentation? Narrow selection says "If you have a particular group of lists that you want to query that all contain the text "SALES" in the list name, for example, type "SALES" into the box and click "Submit". This will narrow the lists displayed to lists such as ..." However, it appears to search both the list NAME and DESCRIPTION) In addition, we find that we often need to notify the quiet owners as well; there are some things they simply need to know. If people managed quiet vs non-quiet designation better it wouldn't be a problem, but they don't. It is good to hear that ALL-REQUEST is now limited to postmasters/etc- we quit using that because people replied in autopilot (I know, I probably should have known of this change sooner, but I didn't). We also periodically have the need to send customized email to our owners. For example, we query owners of lists with no activity as to whether the list is viable. This is a laborious process of scanning the logs for activity, mating the data with list ownership, and then generating customized email. So I now have a script that scans all of the list headers for owners, with a caching mechanism to provide acceptable performance through a network connection and over the large number of lists. And while I was at it, I made it look through subscribers because q * for [log in to unmask] performs so slowly (yes, I know about the high performance option, but it appears we still have a performance issue that Lsoft has not been able to resolve). And I can scan for certain list settings for whatever reasons (who has sublists, who has confidential=no, etc., etc) I still love the product.