>Just how is this INTERBIT business arranged in the first place?  If you
>are generating a BSMTP stream for Mailer, you could instead generate a
>LISTSERV DISTRIBUTE job and pass it off to LISTSERV (which would probably
>do a more efficient delivery anyway).  Seems much safer and easier.  If
>you try to fake out Mailers and leave the 'To: [log in to unmask]
>in the header, that sounds like asking for a loop.
>
>/Jeff/
 
This is a great idea (I had been thinking of it also :-) ). There are a
few possible solutions. First, SMTP could be modified to send to an
alternate 'MAILER' (defined as LISTSERV) if there are greater than n
recipients. It could then send either a DISTRIBUTE job or its regular
BSMTP output to LISTSERV, which if it were BSMTP would have to learn how
to handle BSMTP input. Another solution would not require mods to SMTP. I
could simply tell SMTP that LISTSERV was its normal mailer. LISTSERV could
then take a look at the file which came in from SMTP, and if it had only a
small number of recipients, it could just pass it on to MAILER. If this
number were large, it could DISTRIBUTE it. Note that I don't think that
LISTSERV could just CP TRANSFER it to MAILER, since I believe that MAILER
checks the CP bit which says that the file has been transferred. This
would make this possibility much nicer, since it would not require an
extra level of spooling.
 
Eric, do you have any interest in teaching LISTSERV to read BSMTP?
 
Bill