>If I can get a reasonable guarantee that there will be no LISTSERV
>brain-damage (explanation provided upon request), I can bi-directionally
>gateway SAS-L to a "normal" USENET newsgroup.
 
But Erik (and everybody else who is planning to install similar
gateways), please make sure that you are subscribed with the
full-header option (send a "SET listname FULL" command to the
Listserv from where the gateway is served - and then pray that
this isn't a subdistribution list subscribed without this option
to the real one and only main list. Hope it's clear what I mean :-)
 
Actually this is not done for all lists which are gatewayed to
Usenet/inet. I'm gatewaying some Listserv lists to local Usenet
sites and I'm tired of seeing these duplicates which are caused
because ucbvax creates a new Message-Id. This is a local anoyance
but it prevents that I can feed this stuff into the right groups
(which would result in shorter round trip times for European
sites because we are at the other end of the (networking) world).
 
And PLEASE PLEASE, everybody considering another BI-directional
gateway - better think twice. Multiple gateway Listserv->Usenet
are fine and dandy (IFF they are all subscribed with the fullheader
option). But multiple gateways the other way around, oh no, better
let do Erik this job (there may be a 'safe' configuration to do
this, but whoever isn't able to find it out him/herself, shouldn't
do it anyway).
 
And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: There is the word "brain-damage" in Erik's
letter. Usually this results in 3Mbyte of brain-damaged flames back
and forth. We all can live without it, right? Both sides are trying
real hard to misunderstand each other, and it will take more time to
bring them together than to introduce X.400 worldwide (another can
of worms :-)
 
We all are a little braindamaged, aren't we? Why the heck shouldn't
we waste our time with networking otherwise :-)
 
  Thomas