No Richard, this is the wrong way to go. I don't mean the update concept for
PEERS NAMES -- whether  we ship updates or the whole file is  only a matter of
network load. I mean  asking postmasters to do the work  themselves AS THE ONE
AND ONLY  AVAILABLE OPTION.  This sure is  going to hurt  the backbone  a lot.
People who don't have  time to update don't have time  to install PEERS NAMES,
of course, and this  is not a problem in your scheme. But  see DOMAIN NAMES: I
usually  install whatever  table  update I  get within  the  15 minutes  after
receipt (assuming I'm here). With DOMAINS NAMES being updated more than once a
week, I eventually, after a long period, became FED UP with it. Too much extra
work for me. I told Hank about it, and he understood my feeling and decided to
PUT it about once every 3 weeks, which is very acceptable.
 
  My point: a  postmaster who wants to do "extra  work" (eg manually verifying
any and all PTFs on his PUT  tape, and selectively discarding those he doesn't
want to keep) should have right to.  A postmaster who wants to have nothing to
do but enter the logon password and reply to a few questions should be allowed
to use VMSERV  or INSTFPP or whatever.  I would myself choose  the former, but
would find it unacceptable  if IBM did not provide VMSERV  &co. Even though it
is obviously best to check IBM PTFs for bugs before installing them.
 
  Eric