I've found that the following structure works best for me.

  c:\listserv\log                       Log files
                \archives               Web pages and some digests for those
lists that don't have archives
                \archives\<list-name> List archives and other files
associated with the particular list
            \main               Everything Listserv needs including lists
themselves
                \tmp                    Temporary files
            \spool              Job and incoming mail files

This configuration is simple and works well with my web server with a
minimum of hassle.   I'm hoping to get a new machine for my server later
this year with a RAID array.  If that happens, I might change my
configuration slightly, but it works fine as is. I hope this helps.  Let me
know if you have any questions.

C. David Young
Central Systems Support
University Of Texas At Arlington
mailto:[log in to unmask]
Voice: (817) 272-3666
Fax: (817) 272-5796


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael J. Langum [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:08 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      I am setting up my first ListServ Server (NT version), and
> in
>
> I am setting up my first ListServ Server (NT version), and in
> a real steep learning curve.  To make things even better,
> management has already scheduled a "debut" for next Tues.
>
> Here is my current question.  What is the best directory
> structure?  I am especially concerned about individual
> "*.list" files, "Archives," "Files," and "Digests?"  Should
> everything be under c:\ListServ, or under the root?
> e.g.
>   c:\listserv\log         c:\ListServ
>           ...\tmp         c:\Lists
>           ...\spool       c:\Files
>           ...\main        c:\Archives...etc.
>           ...\Lists
>           ...\Archives
>           ...\Files
> Or
> , Archive, Files
>
> Should "\Archives," "\Files," etc. be peers or children of
> the "\List" directory?
>
> I have not found a clear statement in the "Site Managers
> Manual."  I would really appreciate your wisdom.
>
> Thanks,  --Mike