Thanks for the responses to my original query about moving the Internet addresses from LISTSERV to an Internet-connected Unix system. Since the responses have reminded me of several facts which I failed to mention in my original query, here are a few clarifications: (1) Yes, I know that running a mailing list with names stored in two different places would cause problems. Hence my query to see if anyone had developed the tools to do it easily. So far, no response that I've received suggests such a thing has been done. For those who say there is some intrinsic reason why keeping the names together is superior, let me point out that many mailing lists are divided between two or more nodes--we all know that this is S.O.P. within LISTSERV (which has the tools for doing it). At times in the past, any list with a lot of BITNET and Internet subscribers generally had a separate list on each side and this was considered the good thing to do in order to keep load off the gateway(s) between BITNET and the Internet and the links toward these gateways. These days, the gateways and links are faster, there are more gateways, and Eric has worked to make LISTSERV create less work for the links, but I know there are still lists divided between Unix and VM nodes. (2) Yes, my list (BIG-LAN) uses DISTRIBUTE (actually it uses DIST2). I should have mentioned this--it certainly is significant to the problem. (3) Yes, I realize we have the software & interconnection to gateway my list to the Internet ourselves. I would love to do this but am not allowed to. We tried it in the past. Suffice it to say that I have become convinced that I won't be able to change the minds of the powers that be. (4) I thought my underlying problem (mail being routed to a less-than- perfect gateway) would be affecting other lists. Just one person has responded to me saying he also experienced the same problem (with the same gateway). (5) This problem has been consistently plaguing me for months, since early Fall. I figured that any problems with DIST2's mechanisms would go away with a monthly iteration or two of the BITNET tables but in this case, that has not happened...and I'm still patiently discarding each error message I receive from such addresses so that when the problem IS fixed that these people will still get their mail. John Wobus Syracuse University