Niall, it's a 1-line change to 1 exec to zap this thing, but if I do it I'll be flamed by over 100 people. I'll just abide by the old saying, Vox Populi, Vox Dei. Let's put it on a vote. (Niall is referring to the mailing ACKs from LISTSERV not being reflected to non-BITNET nodes). I don't see any reason why INFO or GET should not work on HEANET. LISTSERV should generate a mail envelope to send the stuff. /Eric /../ Eric, It is perhaps technically true that the acknowledgements which Mary would like to see are "not very important per se". However, it does little to generate confidence in the fruit of your labours that a number of features of the server do not work as documented for users on gatewayed networks. Given this behaviour, why should they believe that even the basic mail distribution function works? I believe that it is important for user confidence that acknowledgements be delivered to whomsoever requests them, whatever the transport service used to deliver the mail. If this cannot be done, the reply to the user's command should say so, and explain (briefly) why. Could you please consider the possibility of providing a mechanism for local people to define to LISTSERV those gateways which are "known to be well designed and work correctly" so that the server's filtering of addresses could be based on a more flexible heuristic than whether the address "looks like an Internet address"? By the way, requests for INFO (except INFO ?) do not work for (HEANET-) gatewayed users. Is this caused by the same restriction, or by something else? Please understand that I am not in a position to assess the work necessary to implement any of these suggestions; perhaps they are unreasonable. It seems a pity, however, that one of the better servers in netland has its services curtailed because of some of the poorer gateways. Niall