Eric, I'm sorry, but I don't agree. LISTSERV *already* will not run on a majority of BITNET sites, so that argument doesn't mean much. Certainly, if the ONLY an SFS version were available to the network even more people would be left out, but that was not what I was suggesting (see previous posting). Yes, you would still need an authorization list for files, but you would NOT need a FILELIST per se. Also, I am not sure what security considerations you are referring to, re: aliasing fileids. Actually, I don't want to get into a big argument about this issue. I think that even if there is a performance hit, using the native file system as-is is preferable to imposing a structure on the native file system. CMS' file system forced the development of things like FILELISTs, but if it is possible to move away from that kind of application-level simulation I think the possibility should receive a much more serious treatment than what it's received here. And even if SFS proves NOT to be a reasonable alternative, I think the FILELIST support needs to be tightened up. A maintainer should not have to hand-edit FILELISTs to add, remove, or rename files. If you are going to impose a file system on a file system, you should provide the primatives for manipulating files transparently in that environment. This is not a put-down of LISTSERV or Eric's implementation. It is an expression of my concerns as a LISTSERV user and administrator. Andy