>I would like to suggest that the important files will either: > >(1) Be distributed to all known servers, without discrimination. This is technically impossible. The concept of the backbone emerged precisely due to this impossibility. Let's assume that Eric develops a new format for PEERS NAMES. Release X contains some compatibility code, to ease the migration, and release X+1 supports only the new format. If PEERS NAMES were then distributed to all servers without limitation, non-backbone servers, which could well be at a release < X, would get an incompatible version of PEERS NAMES and most probably crash. >(2) Be distributed to all servers that so request, by a *new* tag - *not* the > "backbone" tag. I have serious reasons why I would not put my server in > the backbone. Have you considered :backbone.YES DISTRIBUTE(NO)? Or you really can't apply updates in time, or let them be applied automatically? >PS: As an aside, when I got the LINKSWT file from the nearest backbone, I > LSVPUT it onto my server, just to find, to my horror, that my LISTSERV is > distributing the file to 70 other servers... I was fast enuf to stop that > in time however. Should I have known this is going to happen? And, > wouldn't this happen when I subscribe my LISTSERV to get the files from a > backbone site, with a PROLOGTEXT saying PUT? You should use the "PUT fn ft filelist NODIST" syntax, where NODIST avoids this redistribution. Standard LSVPUT does not support it, but Christian's one does I think. Christian will probably be happy to send you a copy. Jose Maria