Then ... let's start a technical discussion 'though I'm not sure if it's possible to completely avoid politics - maybe policy is permitted. I did a q&d check on the global lists. There are some 900 *different* lists, 550 only on BITNET/NetNorth hosts, 250 only on EARN hosts and 100 peered over the Atlantic (if I didn't make a mistake). More than half of the lists use DISTRIBUTE (for non-peered lists it's approx. 40%). If I had more time I could give more detailed and more accurate numbers. Keeping in mind that both peering and DISTRIBUTE are used to minimize traffic you can imagine the impact of the split. Remember: only mail and only if the list has not set Mail-Via=DISTx is "packed" to a maximum of 5 recipients in one file, everything else goes in one-file-per-recipient across the water. What are possible solutions? a) wait until the net is overloaded - probably not a good idea, but maybe traffic isn't that high at all. b) Subscription is restricted (by means of the Service= keyword). Maybe one (other-side) redistribution list is permitted per list. This of course will make the lists one-way. c) A LISTGATE could be implemented. On both sides there is one LISTGATE (i.e. a LISTSERV/LISTEARN peering all the lists on it's side). They would be set up so that "pseudo-peering" takes place. But technical decisions depend also on p*litical ones. It doesn't make much sense to develop strategies without knowing the future direction. I would like to have a statement from EARN as soon as possible. Or assurance that the transatlantic link and major lines can take the traffic without problems. But what if BITNET is not happy with the extra traffic on it's lines .. ??? Christian