>Perhaps I am missing something, but there is an advantage to Peers lists which
>the Mail-via=Distribute  will not  address. One  of the  main functions  of my
>LISTSERV is the maintenance of notebooks on all of the lists which are carried
>here. I am not going to get rid of my lists just because someone else wants to
>do direct distribution because I'm not  ready to take the giant step backwards
>and start maintaining notebooks by hand again.
>
>This means there will  still be a NODMGT-L here at  UGA, with some subscribers
>who still have to  be told that they can't send mail back  to the address they
>received it  from in  the first  place. I think  that the  best solution  is a
>combination of  both systems, with enough  Peer servers around the  network to
>provide a nearby address that people can send to and with mail being forwarded
>between servers (and subscribers) via distribute.
>Harold
 
Is there any reason why you can't have lists with no subscribers? They could
do all the notebooking and file serving of archives as usual but all of
the subscribers would be on the original list at Bitnic. Your list would
note be listsed as a peer but only as a subscriber.
 
Phil: I think you are doing something like that at UIUCVMD for a few lists
anyways?
 
This way the entire list of subscribers is kept in one spot for quick reference
(One problem is the cpu required to process the entire list at one spot
and create the DISTRIBUTE JOB - I know of a few lists that, if combined in
to one big list, would have a VERY long list of subscribers....)
 
                                      scott