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