Pete kindly replied, in part.. > Will every LISTSERV list-owner in the world have to reconfigure their > list to stop using the LISTSERV Distribute Backbone? Let's (put pressure > to) solve the problem. Yes, I want to solve this problem, but my eliminating the LISTSERV distribute backbone from *my* LISTSERV distributions will provide better service and better support of *my* clients, using less of my time. I'm convinced of it; I'd like the opportunity to try. I'm not smart enough to know what other LISTSERV sites should do. Here's why the LISTSERV distribute backbone sucks (for me): 1. The store and forward nature of the backbone causes substantial delays from time to time. 2. Finding the path a distribution, to any particular site, will take is difficult or impossible. 3. The backbone is a black hole. a. The LISTSERV console log doesn't show e-mail sent via the backbone. I can't verify from the console log that a post was distributed to a particular subscriber. For example, the message on the LISTSERV log might be "Mail forwarded to LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU for 18 recipients.", whereas, I get specific messages for each distribution via SMTP, such as "Mail posted via SMTP to [log in to unmask]" b. I can't follow the path of a particular distribution to see how far it has traveled or where is is hung up or where or when it was delivered. 4. When much mail was carried over BITNET, the LISTSERV distribute background was a performance and maybe a reliability enhancement. With almost all deliveries via SMTP now, the backbone is not needed (for my site's deliveries). 5. If messages generated at my LISTSERV site are delivered by numerous systems, their delivery is somewhat or completely out of my control. Without the LISTSERV distribute backbone, these messages are delivered by *my* SMTPs, usually directly to each subscribers system. Since the SMTP is mine, or my site's, I have substantial control over their operation. I also have direct or nearly direct access to audit trails and current state information, so debugging any particular non or multiple delivery of posts is a relatively simple, and very *possible* procedure. 6. It doesn't matter that a problem might be with a recipient's system, unless I can show that e-mail was delivered to them, and when. I can't with the backbone; I can without it. 7. Over the years, time and time again, subscribers and list owners have reported delivery problems to me, yet they and I can communicate via e-mail and LISTSERV can send them administrative e-mail. These are instances of the backbone causing a problem where none would otherwise exist. 8. I have one case where the backbone causes e-mail to go through an SMTP that has a bug that cannot be corrected soon. Distributions through this (VM) SMTP fail randomly under certain conditions (e-mail greater than 64K bytes, with multiple concurrent SMTP deliveries). Allowing me to not use the LISTSERV backbone allows me to bypass this failing SMTP, allowing much better service to those (numerous) clients. Yes, I'd like to solve the current problem, but hopefully this has shown that teaching me how to eliminate the LISTSERV distribute backbone for messages I generate is important to my site. Perhaps I should just stop ranting here and give LSoft a call ... Thanks and cheers, wayne Wayne T. Smith mailto:[log in to unmask] Systems Group - UNET University of Maine System LISTSERV maintainer for http://lists.Maine.edu/