(Excuse duplicates if you are on both lists... it applies to both) The June BitNews reports that there is now a 'NODEINFO FILELIST' on the LISTSERV at Bitnic. It has BITONLY/NETNORTH/EARN/MAILER/XMAILER/DOMAIN NAMES files plus NODES INFO1/NODES INFO2 and another odd file or two. They suggest you get files from LISTSERV now and further suggest that you AFD/FUI them if you need them. BITEARN NODES/VERS* NODUPDT were not. (Incidentally, they say they have MAILER NAMES but it's not on the filelist). If that comes as a surprise to you, don't feel alone; I'm on LSTSRV-L, NODMGT-L, LIAISON, XMAILER, MAILBOOK, TRAFIC-L, MAILDIST, and some other lists and it was news to me. I don't use the node names files but do use the mailer names files; currently I have AFD'ed them from NETSERV. So, now we have, apparently: NETSERV: BITEARN NODES, VERSyymm NODUPD, mailer NAMES, no split node names LISTSERV: all of the above plus split node names now NODUPD-D: (Some list which distributes VERSyymm NODUPD and BITNET LINKS) NICSERVE: (Not sure which of the above they are keeping now) Now, NODUPD-D is the 'fastest' way to get VERSyymm NODUPD, at least in the states. LISTSERV will not do AFDs by DISTRIBUTE because of the prolog text (or will it now, Eric?) so the NODUPD-D distribution of the file is faster than AFD to either NETSERV or LISTSERV. There are a lot of hooks involved here... but... (1) LISTSERV@BITNIC has NODEINFO FILELIST as GET=ALL. Anybody can AFD them and AFDs will invite traffic rather than reduce it (again, assuming the AFDs are processed flat, due to prologtext limitation). (2) MAILER/XMAILER/DOMAIN NAMES are generally retrieved as a group, and you can safely assume that everyone with a mailer gets them (or should get them!). Similarly, everyone with the Croswell MAILER should be on the MAILDIST list to get mailer code. Can't Alan (or somebody) simply AFD the list to NETSERV (or LISTSERV) for those files and we be done with it? That would send out the files as DISTRIBUTE and take care of 80% or more of the people that need those files. (3) In more general terms, for these 'bulk' files, it would be better to setup a list that recipients would SUBSCRIBE to, and AFD it to the files in question. This would allow the files to be DISTRIBUTEd rather than sent out flat. (4) (Don't shoot me Eric, its just a thought...) ...or else have LISTSERV send out AFDs for everyone with a blank prologtext as a DISTRIBUTE job, then back up and send out 'customized' ones if necessary for prologtext (again, if it's not doing it already... I wouldn't be surprised, but it wasn't the last time I checked).