If I understand it properly, there are two main reasons for the current proposed plan to split LISTSERV in LISTSERV and LISTEARN: the assumption that EARN will migrate to OSI soon, and thus a functional split is unavoidable anyway, and Eric's desire of not to be involved any longer in any way with EARN regarding LISTSERV. I share Eric's concerns and I can understand them perfectly, but on the other hand I think such a split would be a major disaster, technically, for the whole network (not only for EARN). Therefore I'm proposing an alternative, open to discussion, to try to satisty the preceding reasons and still delay as much as possible the problems resulting from the split. I'd do the following: an EARN LISTSERV coordinator, paid by EARN, would be the person responsible for LISTSERV in EARN. This person should be choosen to have a very good experience with LISTSERV, and should be the final point for user and postmaster questions and problems about LISTSERV in EARN. Eric would forward unread any mail originating at an EARN node to this person, maybe sending at the same time an automatic mail to the originator telling him to direct further questions to this EARN choosen person. EARN would pay Eric a sum of money for the initial EARN-wide license for LISTSERV, AND a monthly fee for the privilege of obtaining some maintenance and future versions and the burden of redirecting mail. The only person from EARN which Eric would have to hear, for the money he would get regularly, would be this EARN expert. He might or might not provide fixes at the requirement of EARN, but anyway an important bug would normally also appear in BITNET or NetNorth and would fix things in the next release. Shipments would be sent by Eric to BITNET and NetNorth, and manually to the EARN expert, who could decide where in EARN to install them, and thus should be the only one to contact, etc. If EARN happened not to be happy with the level of service obtained from Eric, or would need a feature which Eric would not like to provide (as for example some OSI interface), EARN would have the right to continue using the present version of the software, and *at this moment* the LISTSERV/LISTEARN split would be effected: Eric would stop to receive the monthly fee, the backbones would be split, etc. With this approach we would avoid major problems for a time, and Eric would be free of EARN's nonsense. Jose Maria