This is an astonishing development in light of the mixed reviews that ListProc has enjoyed. How was this decision made? WHY was this decision made? What were the other alternatives? What evidence is there that BITNIC will be able to evolve the product so as to make it fully compatible with Revised Listserv? Is doing so a more economical solution than contracting for Thomas' product soon to be released? (I doubt it. Remember that, like it or not, Revised Listserv defines the protocol, both because of precedence, and because of its quality, funtionality and robustness. This means that BITNIC not only must continue to support a software product they own "forever," but also is condemned to an infinite sentence of catchup so as to always remain compatible with Revised Listserv.) I'm sorry to say it (especially in such a public forum) but this whole tack appears to be ill-conceived. As I've said recently in a different context, CREN's primary responsibility still is to attend to and enhance the NJE mail network. To spend members' money on a noninteroperable product would not seem to be among its responsibilities. The Board, I suppose, is within its rights in making such a decision, but the membership is equally within its rights to question it and to insist on more disclosure on the factors considered, how the choice was made, and why it became a matter for decision at all. -/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ Benjamin E. Chi BEC@ALBANY or [log in to unmask] Director, Computing and Network Services +1(518)442-3700 The University at Albany, Albany NY 12222 USA fax +1(518)442-3697