>I would like to suggest that the important files will either:
>
>(1) Be distributed to all known servers, without discrimination.
 
This is technically impossible. The  concept of the backbone emerged precisely
due to  this impossibility. Let's assume  that Eric develops a  new format for
PEERS  NAMES.  Release  X  contains  some  compatibility  code,  to  ease  the
migration, and release  X+1 supports only the new format.  If PEERS NAMES were
then  distributed to  all  servers without  limitation, non-backbone  servers,
which could  well be at a  release < X,  would get an incompatible  version of
PEERS NAMES and most probably crash.
 
>(2) Be distributed to all servers that so request, by a *new* tag - *not* the
>    "backbone" tag. I have  serious reasons why I would not  put my server in
>    the backbone.
 
Have you  considered :backbone.YES DISTRIBUTE(NO)?  Or you really  can't apply
updates in time, or let them be applied automatically?
 
>PS: As  an aside, when I  got the LINKSWT  file from the nearest  backbone, I
>    LSVPUT it onto my server, just to find, to my horror, that my LISTSERV is
>    distributing the file to 70 other servers... I was fast enuf to stop that
>    in  time however.  Should I  have  known this  is going  to happen?  And,
>    wouldn't this happen when I subscribe my LISTSERV to get the files from a
>    backbone site, with a PROLOGTEXT saying PUT?
 
You should  use the "PUT  fn ft filelist  NODIST" syntax, where  NODIST avoids
this redistribution. Standard LSVPUT does  not support it, but Christian's one
does I think. Christian will probably be happy to send you a copy.
 
  Jose Maria