Eric,
 
Actually, I don't really care that much about an SFS LISTSERV implementation.
It seemed like a possible way to eliminate some of the work LISTSERV does to
simulate a hierarchical file system, and take that burden off your back.  It
is obvious that you don't feel it is a workable scheme, and I will accept
your judgement on the matter.  SFS case closed.  However...
 
This brings up another problem I have with LISTSERV as it stands now:
LISTSERV seems to be a series of services bound to an implementation.
Ideally, these services should be specified independently of your
implementation,  so that any user on any system on the network can write
a compatible server.  As it stands now, around 60-70% of all BITNET nodes are
excluded from running LISTSERV because they do not run VM.  The portability
issue will become increasingly important as the proportion of VM sites on the
network drops (which is happening at a precipitous rate). In five years,
you will be less worried about porting LISTSERV to SFS than you will dealing
with totally new network and system architectures.
 
Andy