Eric,
 
I'm sorry, but I don't agree.  LISTSERV *already* will not run on a
majority of BITNET sites, so that argument doesn't mean much.
Certainly, if the ONLY an SFS version were available to the network
even more people would be left out, but that was not what I was
suggesting (see previous posting).
 
Yes, you would still need an authorization list for files, but you
would NOT need a FILELIST per se.  Also, I am not sure what security
considerations you are referring to, re: aliasing fileids.
 
Actually, I don't want to get into a big argument about this issue.
I think that even if there is a performance hit, using the native
file system as-is is preferable to imposing a structure on the native
file system.  CMS' file system forced the development of things like
FILELISTs, but if it is possible to move away from that kind of
application-level simulation I think the possibility should receive a
much more serious treatment than what it's received here.
 
And even if SFS proves NOT to be a reasonable alternative, I think
the FILELIST support needs to be tightened up.  A maintainer should
not have to hand-edit FILELISTs to add, remove, or rename files.  If
you are going to impose a file system on a file system, you should
provide the primatives for manipulating files    transparently in that
environment.
 
This is not a put-down of LISTSERV or Eric's implementation.  It is an
expression of my concerns as a LISTSERV user and administrator.
 
Andy