Then  ... let's  start a  technical discussion  'though I'm  not sure  if it's
possible to completely avoid politics - maybe policy is permitted.
 
I did a q&d  check on the global lists. There are  some 900 *different* lists,
550 only on BITNET/NetNorth hosts, 250 only  on EARN hosts and 100 peered over
the Atlantic  (if I didn't make  a mistake). More  than half of the  lists use
DISTRIBUTE (for non-peered lists it's approx. 40%). If I had more time I could
give more detailed and more accurate numbers.
Keeping in mind that both peering  and DISTRIBUTE are used to minimize traffic
you can imagine the  impact of the split. Remember: only mail  and only if the
list has not  set Mail-Via=DISTx is "packed"  to a maximum of  5 recipients in
one file, everything else goes in one-file-per-recipient across the water.
 
What are possible solutions?
a) wait  until the net  is overloaded  - probably not  a good idea,  but maybe
   traffic isn't that high at all.
b) Subscription  is restricted (by means  of the Service= keyword).  Maybe one
   (other-side) redistribution list is permitted per list. This of course will
   make the lists one-way.
c) A LISTGATE could be implemented. On  both sides there is one LISTGATE (i.e.
   a LISTSERV/LISTEARN peering all the lists  on it's side). They would be set
   up so that "pseudo-peering" takes place.
 
But technical  decisions depend also on  p*litical ones. It doesn't  make much
sense to develop strategies without knowing the future direction. I would like
to have  a statement  from EARN  as soon  as possible.  Or assurance  that the
transatlantic link and major lines can  take the traffic without problems. But
what if BITNET is not happy with the extra traffic on it's lines .. ???
 
Christian