I am afraid I must correct some things that have been said on this list :-) First, LISTSERV is going to have a package concept of course, but keep in mind that the code for normal operations isn't even finished yet! Please leave me some time to breathe :-) Second, Netserv IS going to have a package system 'soon'. I discussed this with Bert about 1 month ago or so, and we came to the conclusion that a complex package system with special commands for maintenance of the package and such- like (c/suchlike/GRAND-like/ ;-) ) is not really necessary. However we did not agree on the implementation of the thing. Bert wanted a new GETPKGE xxxxx command while I preferred GET XXXXX PACKAGE. In Bert's approach of the problem, XXXX PACKAGE was a file which listed all the components of the package (so far it's ok with me) but users should be able to retrieve it individually with the normal GET command. In my approach the package file had a filetype of $PACKAGE and could be obtained via GET while "GET XXXX PACKAGE" sent the whole bunch of files. Oh well, metaphysics ;-) Please note that the official reason why the NIC did not move to NETSERV is that "it does not have a package concept". Also note that NICSERVE does not have a package system either. However, it is being modified ("right now") to implement such a feature. Considering that "right now" was 1 year ago, we may seriously question the programming ability of the authors of NICSERVE ;-) I'd like to make it clear that LISTSERV is not intended to replace NETSERV. First, Netserv provides a lot of 'management' functions that are not provided, and will never be provided by LISTSERV. Second, all the NETSERVs are clones (for the best!) while each postmaster can configure his LISTSERV as he sees fit. That means the LISTSERVs will become a real mess I guess ;-) Third, the NETSERVs are very reliable because they are automatically maintained by their author. If something goes wrong with Netserv, Bert fixes the problem, does a PUT of the corresponding exec, and 10 minutes later all the servers are up to date (*cough* make it '10 to 10,000 minutes' :-( ). LISTSERV is supposed to implement only basic server functions to provide list owners with a means where by information files/programs can be communicated to members of a given list, while the LISTSERV management can make general info files (like the future equivalent of "LISTSERV GROUPS") available to everybody. NETSERV is a network information server, LISTSERV is a general purpose one. You could create a list of Shakespeare fans and store the Complete works of the Master of poetry on a LISTSERV while I doubt Bert would ever consider placing it on NETSERV ;-) However, I have implemented tools in 1.5c to ease LISTSERV-to-NETSERV communi cation. Notes received from a Netserv userid are forwarded to the postmaster. notes sent to a Netserv userid are automatically re-routed to the corresponding contact persons (eg 'To: NETSERV@BEARN c/o Bruno Durasse <DURASSE@BNANDP11>'). When I have time I will develop a set of local commands that will allow you to configure your LISTSERV to provide a sort of 'cache disk' for Netserv files (to avoid multiple GETs and relieve the network). I had started a special ser- ver called NETINFO to perform this task before I wrote LISTSERV, and since it turns out that I will probably never have time to write NETINFO, I will provide the required tools in LISTSERV to implement it at least partially because I feel it is an important function, especially for US nodes where there is a definite lack of host Netservs... :-( Time for dinner... Eric