Before the $'s going down farther 2 cents: Although LISTSERV is becoming a de-facto standard it's not an "official network tool". There exists a "coordinating board" (3 ppl. ?) but except for the INFOs, PEERS NAMES and LINKSWT stuff there is no centralized concept in it. This doesn't mean that the BITNIC LISTSERV was more "official" or suitable for automated update. *-* LISTSERV can be seen from a "local" or a "network" point of view. I can use LISTSERV (with or without things like MAILER) as an easy way to support lists without worrying about DISTRIBUTE and other things. I can install LISTSERV as a fileserver. I can modify it in whatever way I like. Or: LISTSERV can be used to reduce traffic significantly. LISTSERV can help to get a more fair consumption of resources and many other things. ***************** Just read Eric's note - will we lose him or not ? Eric: don't leave before 1.7q !!! and - I hope you get paid in FF not in $ ! ***************** *-* If we make an "official LISTSERV-subnet" I would vote for: 1a) centralized and automatic updates 1b) unmodified code - i.e. sites with "local mods" must either guarantee that those do not affect the function or can't take part 1c) strict rules for "LISTMASTERS" >>>>>>> OR <<<<<<<< 2) a "stabilzed" Version of LISTSERV, no updates within a certain period of time. I.e. no modifications even if some feature seems desirable. This would put more weight on Eric's shoulders. :-) - I just can't rely on the OPERATOR to re-start LISTSERV in case of an "update-crash". AND this must also include some circumvention/bypass in case one of the servers is for whatever reason out-of-service if the proper update is important for the function as with the 1.5x sub-releases. *-* Although I would accept "network-update" of the server I am against this feature if not "all" will allow it. That means in detail: a) all "official" LISTSERVs run at the "same" level and all the update is done centralized. It is also assured that: 1) (immediately) pre- and post-update LISTSERVs can work togehter 2) the next update can only be started if the previous one has completed succesfully b) "unofficial" LISTSERVs are neither part of the DISTRIBUTE-backbone nor can they act as Peers. If they are hierachically linked to some list they must behave like a "general user" (whatever this means :-) ) c) not precautions are taken to guarantee the finction of "unofficial" servers d) the responsibility for UOS is fully by the LISTMASTERs *-* Some final remarks: * I experience the mess with the MAILER tables (which is not Alan's fault) * I can remember how long it took until our node was "known" to at least 90% of the net * and I see how lomg it takes for "standards" to become standard (RFCxxx, the POSTMAST(er) ID on every site you can send to, the INFO ID at least in EARN, ....) *-----* I dunno if it's worth the 20m$s ... but anyway I will see the response not before April 27th when I will be back from vacation. Christian