>You're right about that but I think that is more dangerous than the list >owner learning about USENET and making a concious decision to gateway >the list. If an end-user subscribes in an attempt to gateway the list >into USENET you can bet more than half of the time we will see loops or >complaints that the gateway is not working properly. True but that can happen also if an end user types /usr/ucb/vacation, or if a local redistribution list is set up on a site with a funny mailer, or whatever. People who run USENET gateways are usually responsible adults who have read the documentation and understood that they've got to be careful, and I would expect them to notify the list owner about the gatewaying. If the scheme is changed so that authorization is required, and a list owner refuses, what will the gateway maintainer do? Add one line to the code with: if sender='XYZ-L#DUH' then ngroup='bit.listserv.x' He'll still do the gatewaying if he really wants to, but it will be more dangerous (for the reasons already explained re: peered lists etc). Eric