I think we should take Jeff's comment to heart.  I think we all want the
same thing, provide good service to the network and our own user community.
 
I know I cannot accept automatic updating of LISTSERV on my machine.  I
have mods into LSVPROF that are required to run it on my machine, and I
think that similar mods are running at other sites that run SSI.  I have
never asked Eric to support me in that, but automatic updating would
either force that on the net or require I remove myself from the backbone.
 
However, I do like the automatic updates of the data files.  In fact, that
is one of the biggest benefits I've had running NETSERV.  No more AFDing and
then figuring out where to place the files and what to update.  I simply run
an EXEC to compare the dates of files and automatically run updates to mailer
tables et al.
 
Having PEERS NAMES maintained saves me a lot of work; but only if it continues
to work.  Eric has done a very good job getting this to work.  Perhaps we
don't tell him enough.  (Eric, Thank you)  Perhaps some of us should look
at what we can do to help out.  I know I have submitted a couple of code
fragments that have been included in later releases.  But more importantly
is the PEERS NAMES problem and keeping back leveled LISTSERVers without
losing files or crashing any LISTSERVs.  At risk of looking totally stupid
and drawing peoples ire, What about another tag in PEERS NAMES such as
:backbone with values of YES or NO.  No DIST jobs would be sent to
those with backbone of NO.  This allows back leveled servers that are
incompatible and those who don't wish to participate in DIST functions.
PEERS NAMES and LINKSWT FILEs would be sent to the :contact instead of
automatic update.  This would keep people running and help remind them
that they are backleveled.  This may require some new code, but I think
we can wait for 1.5j.
 
I'm afraid separate maintenace will be a MAJOR problem.  For example,
I don't agree with all the values of LINKSWT FILE.  In the past I
only had to demonstrate the need for a change to Eric.  Even if I changed
my own copy, it would eventually be "corrected".  That kept my hands
off that file.  (No flames about OCO!)  I'm more likely to change it
the way I feel is right if I maintain it, and yet I'll have to
convince 60+ other people to also update it.
 
Now that I've given another proposal to be shot at, go ahead and fire away.
 
Harry